House of Commons
Oral Answers to Questions
(3 weeks, 6 days ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Ms Julie Minns (Carlisle) (Lab)
Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Lilian Greenwood)
Illegal e-bikes have no place on our roads. My Department has published guidance to make it clear that e-bikes that exceed the legal power and speed limits are treated as motor vehicles and must be registered, taxed and insured. The police have powers to enforce those rules. The same applies to pedal cycles that have been converted using e-bike kits. Consumers should be made aware by those selling such kits that a conversion may mean that a cycle no longer meets the legal definition of an “electrically assisted pedal cycle”.
Ms Minns
I thank the Minister for her response; I know that she shares my concern about the increasing use of illegal e-bikes on our streets. When I visited Palace Cycles in Carlisle, the owner told me that he is increasingly under pressure from people who have illegally modified bikes to do repairs on them. In fact, on one occasion, while he was in discussion with the owner of such a bike, it shot across his shop without anybody being anywhere near it. The bikes are creating risks on our roads and on our high streets. Will the Minister please urge the Department for Business and Trade to use its powers under the Product Regulation and Metrology Act 2025 to ban the sale of these dodgy bike kits?
Lilian Greenwood
My hon. Friend is a great champion of e-bike safety. The Department for Business and Trade has consulted on new product safety regulations and sought views on the targeted regulation of some products, including e-bike batteries and conversion kits. The consultation closed on 23 June, and DBT expects to respond to it in the autumn.
Sarah Pochin (Runcorn and Helsby) (Reform)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Simon Lightwood)
We are empowering local leaders with unprecedented powers and funding to deliver the transport improvements that will best connect their communities. We have allocated £1 billion of local transport funding to the Liverpool city region, and £420 million to Cheshire and Warrington. Thanks to this funding, local leaders can prioritise bus improvements, road repairs, and better cycling and walking routes for their constituents.
Sarah Pochin
It has been a year since I started raising the issue of the Mersey tolls creating barriers to growth and prosperity in Runcorn and Helsby. Despite my asking questions, sending letters, meeting with Ministers and campaigning alongside local residents and businesses, the Government still refuse to consider support for businesses south of the Mersey, which are unfairly penalised simply because of their geography. Will the Minister now reconsider helping those who are affected with subsidies for businesses in Runcorn?
Simon Lightwood
The hon. Lady and I met in October to discuss the tolls on the Mersey Gateway. As she is aware, these charges are the responsibility of Halton borough council. Thanks to funding already provided by the Department, residents of Halton can register a vehicle to use the crossings for personal journeys, free of charge, for an annual fee of £12. Businesses and constituents have benefited greatly from the construction of the Mersey Gateway bridge, which was only made possible thanks to the toll income and our annual grant.
Feryal Clark (Enfield North) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Simon Lightwood)
This Government are determined to deliver better bus services. We are working closely with local leaders across England, and have confirmed over £3 billion of funding over the next three years to support and improve services. Alongside the new powers delivered by the Bus Services Act 2025, local authorities now have the multi-year funding that they need to deliver services that meet local needs.
Feryal Clark
I thank the Minister for her response. Our world-class bus drivers are the backbone of London’s bus service but have borne the brunt of the extreme heat that the city has been experiencing. The Mayor of London is working with bus operators and Unite the union to convene a heat taskforce to protect drivers and keep London’s bus network running safely. Will the Minister join me in commending this work, and does he agree that we must prioritise tackling the impact of climate change to ensure that our transport system runs smoothly?
Simon Lightwood
I will of course join my hon. Friend in commending the Mayor of London for the work that he is doing to keep the people who power our transport system safe. A well-functioning transport system is integral to growth. While we continue to decarbonise the transport system, we must also ensure that it is resilient to the impacts of climate change. The Government have published our climate adaptation strategy for transport, which sets out our vision for a climate-resilient transport system that underpins growth, keeps people and goods moving, and supports every part of the UK economy.
David Mundell (Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale) (Con)
Does the Minister hold any sway with the bus operator Stagecoach? If so, can he convey the concerns of my constituents about the reliability of the X74 service, which operates between Dumfries and Glasgow? Stagecoach has put older buses on this route, leading to poorer reliability and more cancellations. Given that most of the route is along a motorway, I am sure he understands how unsatisfactory breakdowns are.
Simon Lightwood
I of course agree that safe, reliable and affordable bus travel is really important. That is why we passed the Bus Services Act to empower local leaders to take greater control of bus services, and why we are providing £3 billion of extra support over the next couple of years to boost bus numbers. However, reliability is of course key, and I hope that Stagecoach is listening very carefully.
Rebecca Smith (South West Devon) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Keir Mather)
The Government strongly support the maritime sector. We have made maritime autonomy a flagship case study for the regulating for growth Bill, updated the national policy statement for ports to support port developments, provided £448 million to support maritime decarbonisation and strengthened seafarer protections. We are also developing a maritime growth strategy to boost the sector’s economic growth.
Rebecca Smith
I thank the Minister for his answer. He and I have had several interactions over the marine autonomy sector in particular, and I welcome the regulating for growth Bill, as I have said before in this place. However, I am incredibly keen to be reassured that it is coming early in the autumn. Will the Minister help me to meet those drafting the Bill? A request I made to the chief executive officer of the Maritime and Coastguard Agency has not been replied to, and I am very keen to ensure that the businesses working in that sector in my constituency are able to influence the Bill and that we get it through as quickly as possible.
Keir Mather
I thank the hon. Lady for her continued support in promoting the maritime autonomy sector both in her constituency and across the country. She is right to do so. Research from the National Shipbuilding Office shows that there is potential to grow the sector to about £8.3 billion of gross value added by 2050 if we get it right. I will be sure to facilitate a discussion with the relevant officials in the Department for Business and Trade, and I thank her for her continued advocacy on this important matter.
Helena Dollimore (Hastings and Rye) (Lab/Co-op)
Of vital importance to our maritime sector is our coastguard and our volunteer coastguard officers. I know that the MCA’s planned changes to the operating model have been causing serious concern in coastal communities such as mine in Hastings, Rye and the villages. I thank the Minister for really listening to those concerns from our coastal communities. Can I urge him to ensure that these plans are paused and do not go ahead on 1 September, and to really look at the MCA’s handling of this situation? Will he also join me in thanking the brilliant coastguard rescue officers and the many people in the Royal National Lifeboat Institution in my constituency and up and down the country?
Keir Mather
I join my hon. Friend in extending my thanks to CROs across the country for the incredible work that they do. We want to ensure that CROs are tret with dignity and respect, and that they are empowered to carry out their incredible duties. Having listened to the views and testimonies of CROs at first hand, I can confirm that the plans to move to the expenses-only volunteer model in September will not go ahead, and that current arrangements will remain in place. I look forward to working with my hon. Friend and Members across the House to make sure that we get this right.
Joe Robertson (Isle of Wight East) (Con)
I thank the Minister for pausing the MCA’s brutal decision about coastguard rescue officers, and for convening meetings on cross-Solent ferry transport to the Isle of Wight, which will start next month. It is of some concern, however, that I have received a letter—not from him—telling me certain things that I was not allowed to discuss, including evidence of ticketing and reliability going back more than 10 years. I am sure he understands that the world did not start in 2016, and I will not be told by anyone how to best represent my constituents, or what I can or cannot say.
Keir Mather
The hon. Gentleman of course knows best how to represent his constituents on these important matters. I believe that the dynamic he is pointing to is the dynamic of when dynamic pricing was introduced prior to 2010, and the need to be able to compare and contrast the impact of that on pricing. Evidence about that is of course important, and I hope it is factored into the ongoing work.
Luke Myer (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Lab)
Teesside is home to a world-leading maritime industry and an excellent further education landscape. However, one issue that the Tees maritime cluster has identified is a lack of join-up between the two and the fact that there are insufficient qualifications locally for young people to get into the industry. Will the Department work with the Tees Valley combined authority to address this gap and make sure that more young people can get into the industry locally?
Keir Mather
My hon. Friend is right to point to the fact that a thriving maritime sector relies not only on technological advancement, but on a growing skill base to make sure that the maritime economy benefits every part of the United Kingdom, including his constituency. I would be very glad to work with the combined authority as we seek to promote maritime skills and draw more young people into this fantastic sector in which to work.
Jerome Mayhew (Broadland and Fakenham) (Con)
I am very aware that this may be the last time I face these Ministers across the Dispatch Box, so I just want to say that from my perspective, they are a good bunch. I have really enjoyed it, and I wish each and every one of them the best of luck on Monday or Tuesday.
Turning to the question at hand, I welcome the Minister’s statement that he is going to stop the ill-judged decision on CROs, but that does not let the MCA off the hook. At a meeting of MPs recently, the chief executive of the MCA claimed that 93% of coastguard rescue officers supported plans to make them unpaid volunteers. We know from a leaked internal survey that the MCA misrepresented the views of CROs both to Ministers and to Parliament. Up to half of them said that they would quit or reduce their hours if the Government forced through the plans to remove their pay. Given that the Minister has reversed the decision and that he has signally failed to express his support for the chief executive, can he now confirm whether or not he still has confidence in the chief executive of the MCA?
Keir Mather
May I start by extending my thanks to the shadow Minister? Anyone who can endure trading remarks with me on the Railways Bill for as long as we were in Committee together is an absolute stalwart and a credit to the House, so I thank him for working with me on that.
On the broader questions he raises about the MCA, the MCA and His Majesty’s Coastguard do vital work. Ministers have full confidence in the service, but when those on the ground raise concerns on the scale we have seen, and when the evidence base proves insufficient, it is absolutely right that we pause and engage again. That is exactly what the decision to not move ahead with the new model in September facilitates. It will ensure that we treat CROs with the dignity and respect they deserve and, most importantly, that we get this system right.
Liz Jarvis (Eastleigh) (LD)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Simon Lightwood)
We have confirmed £45 million of funding for Hampshire county council to support and improve bus services for the next three years through the local authority bus grant. New powers provided by the Bus Services Act 2025 also give local leaders the tools and the long-term funding certainty they need to improve services and ensure that they reflect the needs of local communities such as those in Hampshire.
Liz Jarvis
We know that buses are important to the right hon. Member for Makerfield (Andy Burnham). They are also important to my constituents in Eastleigh. The 61 and 46 bus routes were axed after Hampshire county council withdrew subsidies, leaving my constituents struggling to get to work, school and hospital. Will the Minister ask the new Prime Minister to ensure that everyone in Hampshire can access bus routes? Does he agree with me that the hours of local concessionary bus travel should be extended?
Simon Lightwood
The Bus Services Act empowers local leaders to choose the model that works best in their area. Our reforms are focused on giving local authorities the tools they need to deliver better bus services. The Act also has a measure on socially necessary local services. Under that new measure, local transport authorities with an enhanced partnership, such as that mentioned by the hon. Lady, will be required to identify the local services they consider to be socially necessary. They will need to put in place requirements that must be followed before such services can be changed or cancelled. What I would say about the English concessionary scheme is that it already costs £795 million a year. Any changes would need to be carefully considered to ensure its financial sustainability.
Chris Bloore (Redditch) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Transport (Heidi Alexander)
We are progressing the first phase of the midlands rail hub to increase capacity in Birmingham. This will improve reliability and enable additional trains between Birmingham, south Wales and the south-west, and on Birmingham’s cross-city line. It will also enable over 25 additional trains a day on the Redditch line. Network Rail has appointed an alliance of industry partners to design the infrastructure, and the alliance is currently consulting on upgrades between Birmingham Moor Street and Bordesley.
Chris Bloore
I thank the Secretary of State for her answer. Rail bottlenecks choke regional trade and hold back Redditch businesses. Delivering the midlands rail hub is fundamentally both pro-business and pro-worker. Will the Secretary of State update me on when she expects critical engineering upgrades to start to ensure that Redditch is fully connected to regional growth?
Heidi Alexander
Following the Government’s decision to move forward with the first phase of the midlands rail hub at the spending review last summer, detailed design work has commenced. We are now working hard to deliver benefits to passengers as soon as possible. This is a complex scheme in a dense urban environment. I cannot currently give a specific start date for the physical works, but I can tell my hon. Friend that new train services enabled by the scheme should come on line in the 2030s.
Richard Tice (Boston and Skegness) (Reform)
East Midlands Railway has cut replacement bus services on a stand-by basis when there is not sufficient railway capacity in peak season. I am concerned that that is because it is deliberately cutting any form of expenditure before going over to Great British Railways. Will Ministers work with me to ensure that this is not the case through the busy summer period?
Heidi Alexander
It is obviously the case that adequate replacement bus services should be available to rail travellers if there is disruption on the line—for example, if engineering works are taking place. I would be happy to follow up if the hon. Gentleman writes to me and provides more detail on the specific experience that he has had. East Midlands Railway is responding to the Bedford train crash that happened a number of weeks ago, and I thank the leadership of that organisation for all the work that they are doing in response.
Lillian Jones (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Transport (Heidi Alexander)
Mass transit systems can radically improve local transport in towns and cities across the UK, but plans can often be slowed down by fragmented funding arrangements, difficulties acquiring land, and planning delays. The Government’s new mass transit taskforce will seek to remove those blockers, and our call for evidence on how that might work is now open. We are also devolving powers to local leaders so that they can deliver schemes faster, unlock growth, support new homes and better connect communities.
Lillian Jones
Scotland’s new Transport Secretary has criticised the UK Government’s transport policy on High Speed 2 for being dysfunctional, yet after two decades in government, the SNP have failed to deliver a rail link to Glasgow airport. That is a vital infrastructure project that would boost economic growth, improve connectivity and create the integrated transport network that Scotland needs. Does the Secretary of State agree that rather than seeking to distract from their own abysmal record in government, the SNP should focus on delivering that major infrastructure investment, which is within their power and would bring lasting benefits to the people of Scotland?
Heidi Alexander
I agree with my hon. Friend, and I suspect the people of Glasgow are at their wits’ end with the approach to that project, having seen it repeatedly promised and deprioritised over the course of two decades. I assure her that my Department remains committed to working constructively with the Scottish Government on this, and I urge them to support my hon. Friend’s work to get the project delivered.
Tom Gordon (Harrogate and Knaresborough) (LD)
My understanding is that Tracy Brabin, the Mayor of West Yorkshire, is bringing into force the Weaver Network, but in York and North Yorkshire we do not yet have an equivalent. One of the challenges that people face is that they often connect over the boundary of those two counties. I used to live in West Yorkshire but go to college in North Yorkshire, and countless people make that journey each day. Does the Secretary of State agree that mass transit needs to work across those county divides? Would it not be better if we had something like a Transport for Yorkshire to make it easier for everyone to get around our great county?
Heidi Alexander
I know that the Mayor of West Yorkshire, Tracy Brabin, and the Mayor of York and North Yorkshire, David Skaith, work closely together. The hon. Gentleman is right that transport crosses administrative boundaries, and that this needs to work for people. That was at the heart of the “Better Connected” strategy that we published earlier this year. I am sure that all elected representatives in the great county of Yorkshire will be working together to ensure that they have the best possible service.
Mr Joshua Reynolds (Maidenhead) (LD)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Keir Mather)
The Transport Secretary and I have held regular discussions about preparations for the EU entry-exit system, and its potential impacts on passenger flows. The Secretary of State has engaged directly with counterparts in France and the European Union, stressing the need for appropriate border staffing levels to support smooth journeys for British travellers on their well-earned holidays this summer.
Jonathan Reynolds
The European Commission has confirmed that member states may partially suspend EES checks for up to 90 days at peak times, extendable for a further 60 days. Can the Minister confirm whether there have been conversations with European counterparts about applying that flexibility at Dover, Folkestone and St Pancras this summer?
Keir Mather
I thank the hon. Member for raising the important issue of passenger flows relating to EES through the juxtaposed controls. I confirm that the Secretary of State has met her French counterpart and the relevant commissioner at the European Union to discuss a range of issues relating to EES. As part of that, we continually discuss what easements or adjustments are necessary to ensure that flows are appropriately managed.
Rachel Taylor (North Warwickshire and Bedworth) (Lab)
Road haulage companies in my constituency have reported huge delays as a result of the introduction of the EU entry-exit system—delays that are costing them time and money. Will the Minister meet me and those in the freight and logistics sector to find solutions?
Keir Mather
I would be glad to meet my hon. Friend and representatives from the freight sector. It is crucial that the sector is empowered to carry out its vital work, especially in the short straits, through which approximately 60% of UK-EU trade passes. She is an advocate for the freight sector in her constituency and across the United Kingdom. We want to ensure that we get this right, so I would be glad to meet her to discuss this subject.
Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)
What a weekend, Mr Speaker! Ministers will be hovering by the phone on Monday or Tuesday. What a visual display of success or failure there will be, as the number of holidaymakers heading to the continent ramps up for the summer season. The Government have had two years on this. Multiple Select Committees in the previous Parliament warned that the technology would not be ready, and that the introduction of the system would be a disaster. How on earth have we got to a situation where the Secretary of State is making last-minute dashes to the European Commission and the French Government to try to get a few extra kiosks—for which the technology does not even work—as holidaymakers face chaos this weekend?
Keir Mather
That is a very theatrical question from the shadow Minister on the scale of the challenge that we face. I can confirm that the meetings that we are having on EES, both in Government and with our counterparts, are to ensure that we get this right, ahead of the peak period. We have supported the port of Dover and Eurotunnel with £3.5 million each in preparation for EES, and earlier this week, we announced £20 million in funding, subject to the completion of relevant checks, to further support border infrastructure at the port of Dover. We are taking a sober, sensible and non-theatrical approach to getting this right.
Greg Smith
I have always enjoyed my exchanges with the Minister. As the nation learned devastatingly last night, trying to defend a single position for a prolonged period does not always have a happy ending. If we get the chaos that is predicted for holidaymakers and freight operators this weekend, will the Government go to the European Union and the French Government and demand that the system be shut down and paused until the technology can be got right?
Keir Mather
I thank the shadow Minister for his question. I can confirm that I have been clear with Ministers in Government, and that Ministers have been clear with French and EU counterparts, that they should do all they can to avoid disruption, including using the existing flexibilities in EES regulations. We are not being complacent and asking for things retrospectively; we are taking the right steps now to ensure that our juxtaposed controls are prepared. There is £3.5 million to prepare for EES operations, both for the port of Dover, and for Eurotunnel and St Pancras.
Olly Glover (Didcot and Wantage) (LD)
I apologise in advance for a lack of theatre or football analogies, Mr Speaker. The Secretary of State’s announcement on Tuesday went into some detail on the arrangements for the UK and French borders, but it was somewhat lighter on the detail of the outcome of her discussions with the European Commission on how to achieve reliable flow through EU member country airports using the new entry-exit system this summer. What tangible and specific outcomes resulted from those discussions, and which of them will take effect in time for the imminent start of the school holidays?
Keir Mather
I thank the Lib Dem spokesperson for his question. I can confirm that we have discussed the flow of passengers through member state airports with our relevant partners in the European Commission, and with member states. That is certainly something I have been doing over the past 10 months. We know that there are outstanding issues with particular airports, which we continue to raise, both through our in-country posts and at ministerial level, to ensure that European partners are fully aware of just how seriously we take British passengers being able to travel with ease to their summer holiday.
Amanda Martin (Portsmouth North) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Simon Lightwood)
The Government know how important affordable bus travel is for helping children and young people to access opportunities. That is why we are funding free bus travel for kids across England this August; it will help families to get out and about for less during the summer holidays. That builds on local initiatives from Labour Mayors in the west and north-east of England that allow children to travel by bus for free.
Amanda Martin
Last week, the all-party parliamentary group for tradespeople hosted a roundtable to discuss the barriers to young people taking up a career in the trades. Travel was raised as a particular issue. While I welcome the Government’s roll-out of new technical colleges, they are simply inaccessible to many young people, especially those in coastal communities, where transport links are poor. Once they qualify, tradespeople rely on their cars and vans to build their businesses and get to their place of work. What steps is the Minister taking, in conjunction with colleagues in the Department for Education and the Department for Work and Pensions, to break down the barriers to opportunity for young people considering these skilled, well-paid careers, and will the Government consider offering driving lessons through apprenticeships?
Simon Lightwood
My hon. Friend is right that transport has a vital role to play in unlocking opportunities for young people, as I know from growing up in a coastal community. Through the Bus Services Act 2025, we are giving local leaders greater power to shape bus services around their local needs, including in coastal and rural communities. We have confirmed over £3 billion for buses from 2026-27, which will help to improve connections to education, training and employment. I am sure that my colleagues in the Department for Education and the Department for Work and Pensions will have heard her call for driving lessons in apprenticeships.
Mr Speaker
I am not sure that fits in with buses, but not to worry. I call Clive Jones.
Clive Jones (Wokingham) (LD)
If this summer’s free bus travel scheme for under-15s proves successful, will the Minister look to extend it for the future? It would help hard-working families in Wokingham make the most of their holiday period.
Simon Lightwood
The Labour party is keeping bus fares low. We introduced the £3 bus fare cap, after the previous Government failed to fund any support when the previous cap expired. Beyond March next year, we will continue to keep our options open, in order to make sure that bus travel is safe, accessible and affordable for everyone.
Euan Stainbank (Falkirk) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Simon Lightwood)
The Government want a vibrant and competitive UK bus manufacturing sector, including in Scotland. That is why we are providing £73.2 million to support the purchase of a further 484 zero emission vehicles, and working with the industry and local leaders to provide greater certainty through our long-term order pipeline.
Euan Stainbank
As legal action is taken against the SNP Scottish Government for the ScotZEB3 grant scheme, which inexplicably saw more expensive orders go to Chinese manufacturers and cheaper ones to Falkirk—no wonder SNP Members have not showed up this morning—the Government and mayoral combined authorities must take heed of the exponentially rising Chinese market share, which has destroyed 115 Scottish jobs in my constituency off the back of the grant scheme. What more will Transport Ministers do, alongside their colleagues in the Cabinet Office and the Department for Business and Trade, to send an explicit message to those who are purchasing buses with taxpayer cash that they should be buying British?
Simon Lightwood
I share my hon. Friend’s commitment to UK bus manufacturing. I am delighted that through the UK bus manufacturing expert panel, mayoral combined authorities have agreed to a commitment that 10% of social value criteria will apply in all future bus procurement exercises. That means that when procuring buses, the positive impact that a manufacturer has on society, the environment and/or communities will be taken into account. We will continue to work with the bus sector to promote UK bus manufacturing.
Dr Ellie Chowns (North Herefordshire) (Green)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Simon Lightwood)
The Government are providing local authorities with a record £7.3 billion investment in local road maintenance, giving councils the long-term certainty that they need to fix potholes, repair road defects and adopt a more preventive approach to maintenance. Some of the funding is being used to incentivise best practice and innovation. In addition, the Government have funded £30 million for Live Labs 2 programming, which is testing innovative materials, new technologies and maintenance techniques to help authorities improve road conditions while reducing costs and disruption.
Dr Chowns
Potholes are the bane of all our lives, including for my constituents, but I have a cunning plan: we could fix potholes much faster by tapping into the superpowers of bin men and women. Bin lorries travel every road every week. Why not equip them with cameras and AI-enabled technology, so that they can spot, map and log potholes immediately, as soon as they appear? That would significantly speed up the process of fixing them. This has been done very successfully in Australia. Will the Department for Transport work closely with the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government to ensure that local authorities have the funding and co-ordination needed to adopt this fantastic technology nationwide?
Simon Lightwood
That is exactly why the Government have funded the £30 million for Live Labs 2. We want councils to have access to the best available evidence on the condition of their roads. We have introduced a new road conditioning monitoring standard that enables local authorities to use a range of approved technologies, including innovative AI-based systems, to collect consistent and reliable data.
Sarah Russell (Congleton) (Lab)
In my area, the improvement on potholes is noticeable, and I thank the Government for the additional funding, which is being used for large patching work; no longer is there just shovelling into endless holes. I am concerned, however, about road safety in my constituency. Understandably, the money has been prioritised for addressing the enormous backlog of roadworks that developed under the last Government. What more can we do to ensure safety, as well as good road conditions?
Simon Lightwood
My hon. Friend will be aware that this Government brought forward, for the first time in over a decade, a road safety strategy. In addition, we have introduced a red, amber and green rating of local authorities, to identify where extra support is necessary in order to improve systems and practices, so that we can banish the potholes once and for all.
Perran Moon (Camborne and Redruth) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Transport (Heidi Alexander)
Decarbonising transport is vital for our energy security and to make the transport network fit for the future. We are driving zero emission vehicle uptake and charging infrastructure roll-out; putting record investment into active travel; overhauling public transport; supporting low-carbon fuel uptake across multiple modes, including in aviation; and funding technology innovation for maritime through the multimillion-pound UK Shipping Office for Reducing Emissions research programme.
Perran Moon
Meur ras ha myttin da, Mr Speaker. A key aspect of transport decarbonisation is attracting more people from cars to trains. As train journeys are generally longer, it is vital that journey time is productive, yet train wi-fi services are often hopeless. As the Secretary of State knows, Great Western Railway has been successfully trialling superfast wi-fi. Will superfast wi-fi be rolled out across all GWR trains by the end of this year, to align with public ownership,?
Mr Speaker
Does wi-fi decarbonise a train? No, I do not think it does. Secretary of State, do you think it does? Because the question was about decarbonisation. You must speak to the question you were asked.
Heidi Alexander
Mr Speaker, I think the point my hon. Friend is making is that if we want a sustainable transport network, the more people we can attract from their cars on to trains, the better. I appreciate how important good connectivity is for all those using our train network. I can tell my hon. Friend that procurement for enhanced wi-fi on all GWR long-distance services will start in the second half of this year.
Mr Speaker
We have to watch out: we are tabling questions but then trying to shoehorn in others. We have seen that with the last two questions. We have to stick to the original question, to help me, because then the follow-up questions take us even further away from where we started. I call Jim Shannon, who will set a good example by bringing us back to the question.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I will focus on the decarbonisation of the transport sector. I thank the Secretary of State for that answer. She will know that we in Northern Ireland want to be part of decarbonisation; Wrightbus in Ballymena is an example of that. What has been done to ensure that we can be part of that future?
Heidi Alexander
I am delighted to hear of the hon. Gentleman’s enthusiasm for decarbonisation. He is right to support the excellent Wrightbus, which manufactures electric buses in Northern Ireland. Through the bus expert manufacturing panel, which is chaired by the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, the hon. Member for Wakefield and Rothwell (Simon Lightwood), who has responsibility for roads and buses, we are working with mayors to find ways of supporting the UK manufacture of electric vehicles, and I look forward to working with the hon. Gentleman and Wrightbus on that.
Mr Richard Holden (Basildon and Billericay) (Con)
Opposition Members genuinely wish the whole Transport team well ahead of the weekend and next week—although if they are moved up, along or down, at least they will not have to answer the many written parliamentary questions that we have put to them over the last few months.
One of the Government’s flagship policies remains, despite consistent urging from both manufacturers and the Opposition. We have asked the Government to change tack, but the ZEV mandate remains. Despite ploughing in billions of pounds of taxpayers’ cash, last year’s target was met only because manufacturers could rely on compliance credits bought from Tesla and BYD, instead of on consumer demand. Does the Secretary of State seriously believe that year-on-year percentage increases to 80% of zero emission vehicles by 2030 or 100% by 2035 are achievable, or that buying compliance credits from China is a sustainable model for the British car industry?
Heidi Alexander
I look repeatedly at data produced by both the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders and the Department for Transport about purchases of new vehicles. In June, nearly 30% of vehicle sales were electric—a significant increase on the year before. We are rolling out new charging infrastructure, with new charge points going in at a rate of one every 30 minutes. The future is electric, and the time to buy electric is now. We see the impact of the conflict in the middle east on petrol and diesel prices, and although we will always keep the ZEV mandate under review and stay in close contact with car manufacturers, it is important that we back the EV transition in this country.
Mr Holden
British vehicle manufacturers are expressing the view, with increasing urgency, that the ZEV mandate has simply become an ideological shibboleth of the Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero. Will the Secretary of State finally listen to the industry, work across Government to sideline the Energy Secretary, listen to the millions of motorists who simply want the freedom to choose the right van or car for them, adopt the Conservatives’ “plan for drivers” policy, outlined last year by the Leader of the Opposition and me, and scrap the disastrous ZEV mandate before it kills off the British car sector and more than 100,000 good jobs across the UK?
Heidi Alexander
What we will not do is make the same mistakes as the right hon. Gentleman’s party made in government. When the former Prime Minister cancelled the 2030 phase-out date for the sale of new pure diesel and petrol vehicles, demand plummeted. We will not change the 2030 phase-out date for pure internal combustion engine vehicles, and we will not change the 2035 phase-out date for hybrids. In this role, I have worked closely with car manufacturers. We introduced new flexibilities last year, and we are talking to them again about a review, which will be completed in the next six months. If I have the pleasure of sparring with the right hon. Gentleman over the Dispatch Box in the coming months, I will be happy to provide him with a further update on that, as soon as the work is completed.
Mr Bayo Alaba (Southend East and Rochford) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Lilian Greenwood)
Congestion can cause real problems, and although local councils are responsible for managing their road networks, the Department has been focused on enabling them to minimise disruption. We have legislated to introduce numerous lane rental schemes and are devolving powers to establish future schemes to mayors. That will enable local decision making to target congestion.
Mr Alaba
My constituents regularly find themselves stuck in standstill traffic as a result of Rochford’s struggling road network. I have also heard from Baltic Wharf, a key port on the estuary, and from my farming community, who all report supply chain issues due to the refusal of delivery drivers to navigate Rochford district’s outdated highways. For an area with significant housing targets, strong local businesses and huge potential for growth, that is a real issue. What support can the Minister provide to rural and coastal constituencies, like mine, that want to enhance and modernise highway connectivity?
Lilian Greenwood
I am sorry to hear about the issues facing my hon. Friend’s constituents; I know how much he does to promote their interests. This Government are investing record sums in road maintenance, and we have strengthened the rules on disruptive street works by extending overrun charges to weekends and bank holidays and doubling fines. I encourage him to continue to make the case to Essex county council, which really must do something about disruption on its roads.
Dr Ben Spencer (Runnymede and Weybridge) (Con)
The A244 has always had too much traffic and too many heavy goods vehicles on it. It goes through Oxshott in my constituency, and following the roadworks on the M25 and A3, increasing numbers of cars and large vehicles are using it as a shortcut between the A3 and the M25. We need that to stop. Will the Secretary of State meet me and work with our local community to improve and reduce traffic on the A244?
Lilian Greenwood
I have met the hon. Gentleman in the past to talk about some of the disruptions caused by improvements to the road network in his constituency. I am sure that the Roads and Buses Minister would be happy to continue those discussions.
James Asser (West Ham and Beckton) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Keir Mather)
The Government are committed to supporting the aviation sector. We are unlocking growth by progressing planning decisions and consulting on the framework for future decisions on Heathrow’s third runway. We are modernising our airspace through the new UK airspace design service and support fund, and are driving decarbonisation, backing sustainable aviation fuel and providing funding for new low and zero emission technologies. We will publish an updated jet zero strategy in early 2027.
James Asser
I recently visited the British Airline Pilots’ Association training facility and flight simulator with the Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero. I confess, Mr Speaker, that the results were mixed: if you are flying on your holidays next week, you would not want to fly with either of us! But if I had wanted to fly, I would face training costs in excess of £100,000, with very few funding packages to provide support. That means that kids in my constituency can watch the planes take off at London City airport but stand very little chance of actually joining that industry. Does the Minister agree that we need accessible pathways to pilot training in order to drag the system into the 21st century and to remove it from a position where only a small minority with the financial means to do so can access the industry?
Keir Mather
My hon. Friend is right that the barriers to a career in aviation are too high, and this Government are committed to supporting recruitment from as diverse a range of backgrounds as possible. Our Generation Aviation programme promotes aviation careers through outreach and apprenticeships to help build a future-ready workforce, and has reached over 1 million young people since it began.
Olly Glover (Didcot and Wantage) (LD)
The Civil Aviation Authority has reported that in 2024-25, 81% of passenger complaints that were initially rejected by airlines were upheld when independently reviewed, leading to £11 million of delayed compensation payments. Does the Minister support the idea of an air passengers’ charter, backed by independent regulation, to support airlines in providing improved customer service and consumer confidence?
Keir Mather
I am glad that the Lib Dem spokesperson shares our concern about consumer rights. Disruption and cancellations—but also disruptive passengers, unfortunately—can ruin the holidays of British holiday- makers who save so much to facilitate those experiences. The new Civil Aviation (Consumer Protection and Regulatory Reform) Bill, which has just come out of the other place, will hopefully re-emerge in the House of Commons on the other side of the summer. It includes a suite of measures to strengthen consumer rights, and I look forward to working with the hon. Gentleman on exactly the sort of issues that he raises as the Bill makes its way through this House.
Patrick Hurley (Southport) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Transport (Heidi Alexander)
I would like to remind the House of how we are improving everyday journeys across the country, starting with our railways. Last month, the new Cambridge South station opened to passengers following £250 million of Government funding to better connect Europe’s largest biomedical campus. Publicly owned services are now on average more punctual than services not yet in public ownership, with fewer cancellations. This week, I announced measures to crack down on fare dodgers thanks to new ticket gates being rolled out across the network. On our buses, we are helping families with the cost of living with free travel for all children aged five to 15 in England throughout August.
Finally, the third cycling and walking investment strategy will give people healthier choices to get around. Last month, it set a 2035 target for over half of short journeys in towns and cities to be walked and cycled. Whether it is a trip to the shop or the school run, we will help more people in more places to get around their neighbourhoods safely and sustainably.
Better, more reliable transport drives good growth, spreads opportunities and makes lives easier. That is our mission, and we are getting on with the job.
Patrick Hurley
Given the creation of “No. 10 North”, much of Westminster and Whitehall may soon be experiencing the delights of the west coast main line for themselves, so I expect further public scrutiny of its service levels. Does the Secretary of State agree that passengers travelling between Euston and the north-west of England deserve better than the current delays and uncertainty, and what assurances can she give me on service improvements?
Heidi Alexander
I do agree with my hon. Friend. Performance on Avanti West Coast has not been good enough, and I am acutely aware that this part of the network—still privately run—has seen reliability below the industry average, with cancellations going in the wrong direction, too. I am pleased to advise my hon. Friend that these services will come into public ownership next year, and I know that the eyes of No. 10, as well as the eyes of my hon. Friend and, indeed, the travelling press pack, will be on them in a new and welcome way.
Mr Richard Holden (Basildon and Billericay) (Con)
In London boroughs and cities across the country, council-wide 20 mph speed limits are causing havoc. In Wales, councils are desperately trying to unpick the last Welsh Labour Government’s blanket 20 mph speed limits. Why on earth are Labour Ministers trying to repeat that clear failure of policy, dreamed up by Labour, Green and Lib Dem councils in England and a failed Welsh Labour Government obsessed with a war on motorists, and impose it on rural communities in England?
Heidi Alexander
We are not imposing anything on anyone, as the right hon. Gentleman well knows. He says that the introduction of 20 mph zones is causing havoc. I would point out that, in many areas, they save lives. We know that somebody who is hit by a car travelling at 30 mph is five times more likely to die than someone who is hit by a car travelling at 20 mph. If that is the sort of policy that he wants to defend, all power to him. It is for local authorities and local councillors to take decisions that suit their local areas best.
Sir Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con)
May I refer the Secretary of State to Question 20 on the Order Paper? Can she explain when the A120 to Harwich will finally be upgraded? Is she aware that a community of some 20,000 people is served by this dreadful road, and that we dread another winter of subsidence and potholes as the existing road collapses, which is long past its renewal date? Given that this road is vital for growth in the east of England, as it serves the Harwich port and the freeport as well as this deprived community, when will we see some plans to upgrade it?
Mr Speaker
Sir Bernard, we are on topical questions. You cannot just transfer your existing question to topicals. Shorten it, please, to help me get other people in. I am sure you want to hear others as well as yourself.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Simon Lightwood)
We are investing over £7 billion to banish the potholes from UK roads. I would be delighted to meet the hon. Gentleman to discuss his specific circumstances.
Lee Pitcher (Doncaster East and the Isle of Axholme) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Keir Mather)
My hon. Friend raises an important issue. This Government are committed to enabling aviation employers to recruit and train pilots from a broader and more diverse talent pool in Doncaster East and across the United Kingdom, supporting growth by removing regulatory barriers and promoting aviation opportunities.
Ms Julie Minns (Carlisle) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Lilian Greenwood)
I share my hon. Friend’s concerns regarding recent safety incidents on the A69 at Warwick Bridge. National Highways is considering in detail with local partners the case for detrunking the A69 and trunking the A689. That is a complex process, and I will ask National Highways to update her when more information is available.
Sir Roger Gale (Herne Bay and Sandwich) (Con)
The Secretary of State appears to think it is scaremongering to suggest that, with effect from this weekend, passenger and freight traffic using the channel tunnel and the port of Dover will be disrupted as a result of the European entry and exit system. I do not want the grievance; I want the solution, and I want it before the event, not after it. What is the Secretary of State going to do to achieve an agreement with the European Commission and the French to suspend this ridiculous system until it works properly?
Keir Mather
With enormous respect to the right hon. Gentleman, we are taking proactive action to prepare for any potential EES disruption. We have spoken with our French and European counterparts about using the full range of easements, but most importantly, we have provided funding to the juxtaposed controls so that they can prepare for any disruption before it occurs.
Adam Thompson (Erewash) (Lab)
Simon Lightwood
National Highways and local authorities are working together through initiatives, such as the £165 million growth and housing accelerator fund, to unlock housing sites where transport infrastructure is a barrier. I will ask National Highways to reach out to my hon. Friend.
Shockat Adam (Leicester South) (Ind)
At a recent packed talk with my Highfields residents, they told me the same thing that all my residents tell me about: the scourge of potholes. We know that councils are facing a backlog of £17 billion in road repairs, but new technology exists that can detect early cracks and seal them before they become potholes. Will the Secretary of State commit to funding the roll-out of that preventive AI-based road technology, instead of constantly chasing the problem?
Simon Lightwood
We have invested over £7 billion precisely so that we can turn the corner on constantly having to react to potholes and go back to the same one time and again. We are investing £30 million on Live Labs 2, so that we can use new innovative technologies to finally turn the tide.
Jenny Riddell-Carpenter (Suffolk Coastal) (Lab)
Heidi Alexander
I would be happy to ask the Minister for Road Safety to discuss this matter further with my hon. Friend and ensure appropriate meetings take place.
Alicia Kearns (Rutland and Stamford) (Con)
I am grateful to the Government for considering improvements to the A605 and Tinwell junctions on the A1, but the current plan is to put traffic lights in place and National Highways agrees that that is not the right approach. Will the Government put the funding, which is welcome, into widening the slip roads, which are far substandard and below the national requirements?
Simon Lightwood
I would be happy to meet the hon. Lady to discuss this further.
Adam Jogee (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Lab)
Lilian Greenwood
The Government are committed to improving transport connectivity across the country. Through the £2.3 billion local transport grant, Staffordshire will receive more than £96 million by 2030, providing the certainty and flexibility to deliver better connections, support economic growth and improve outcomes for communities. I would be happy to meet my hon. Friend, as, I am sure, would my colleagues.
Josh Babarinde (Eastbourne) (LD)
Seventeen-year-old Oakley Meer lost his life in a collision on Beachy Head Road in Eastbourne. Will the Minister meet me and Oakley’s family to discuss how we can improve road safety on that treacherous road?
Lilian Greenwood
I extend my sympathies to the family, who are the hon. Member’s constituents. I would, of course, be very happy to meet them to talk about what we can do to improve safety on that road, as we are doing across the country.
Emma Lewell (South Shields) (Lab)
Simon Lightwood
As somebody who is running the Great North Run this year, I hope that the local highways authority will grip this issue and ensure it is dealt with. The structures fund is open for applications until 3 August.
Martin Vickers (Brigg and Immingham) (Con)
The Under-Secretary of State for Transport will be visiting Immingham this afternoon. Does he agree that his journey would be much more convenient if there were a direct train service from King’s Cross to my constituency, and will he join my campaign to ensure that happens?
Keir Mather
The hon. Gentleman is a dogged campaigner for providing that rail link and I will report back to him about the quality of my journey. I am excited for the steel signing ceremony ahead of the opening of the new eastern roll-on roll-off terminal at the port of Immingham, which I understand the hon. Gentleman has been a passionate champion of.
Alison Taylor (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (Lab)
Would the Minister encourage the Government’s traffic commissioner for Scotland to build on the remarkable success of bus franchising in Manchester, and work with the Scottish Government to emulate the success of Manchester’s Bee Network in my constituency of Paisley and Renfrewshire North?
Simon Lightwood
As reporting from Greater Manchester’s Bee Network shows, bus franchising can deliver improved services for passengers, and the Government are taking steps to support the roll-out of bus franchising in England. Obviously, transport is a devolved matter, but I encourage Ministers in Scotland to learn from the success of Labour mayors in England.
Robert Jenrick (Newark) (Reform)
The Government have cancelled the two main road projects in the east midlands—the A38 in Derby and the A46 in Newark. The Government did not inform anyone. The Labour mayor found out through the trade press that the Government had cancelled the contract, just as I did. What does the Secretary of State have against the east midlands? Will the incoming Prime Minister, who claims to want to see devolution and the empowerment of mayors, do something to fix this mess?
Simon Lightwood
Let me be clear that these proposals will be consulted on. The A38 Derby junctions and the A46 Newark bypass schemes are not in contract and are not scheduled to start main construction until the second half of the third road investment strategy. They are not as far progressed as RIS3 enhancement schemes elsewhere, meaning that the implications of potentially cancelling them would have a less significant impact compared with schemes that are further progressed.
Daniel Francis (Bexleyheath and Crayford) (Lab)
Reform-led Kent county council wrote to Transport for London asking it to consider a number of options for bus route 96, with its preferred option being that it should terminate in Dartford town centre from now on. I will continue to fight for my constituents in Bexleyheath and Crayford to ensure that the route can serve Dartford, Bluewater shopping centre and Darent Valley hospital. Does my right hon. Friend agree that section 173(1) of the Greater London Authority Act 1999 is worded so that cross-boundary routes can operate in that way?
Heidi Alexander
I agree. While I do not expect much from Reform-led administrations, I would at least expect them not to work squarely against the interests of local people in the way that my hon. Friend describes. I urge the county council to see sense and support his campaign to deliver for his constituents and the council’s own residents.
Wendy Morton (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con)
As this could conceivably be the right hon. Lady’s last appearance at the Dispatch Box as Transport Secretary, will she respond to my one last ask? Will she leave a note for her successor, asking them to look again at Aldridge railway station? Will she perhaps remind Mayor Parker to put back the funding that he took away?
Heidi Alexander
I am not sure that notes from sitting Secretaries of State to their successors necessarily work out all that well, as the Prime Minister said from this Dispatch Box yesterday. Let me finish where I started with the right hon. Lady’s questions to me on this matter and advise that this is a decision for the Mayor of the West Midlands. I am sure that she will continue to campaign on this issue and make the case for her constituents.
Martin Rhodes (Glasgow North) (Lab)
What assessment has the Secretary of State made of the potential impact of HS2 on west coast main line services between Glasgow and London?
Heidi Alexander
HS2 will deliver significant benefits for Scotland. Subject to future timetable and operational development, HS2 will aim to maintain the frequency of services to Scotland, increase the number of available seats for Anglo-Scot journeys and deliver an end-to-end journey experience that is an estimated 20 minutes faster.
Vikki Slade (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (LD)
In Manchester, London and now Wales, side road zebra crossings without Belisha beacons are allowed, yet in the rest of England they are not currently available. The Secretary of State mentioned the new cycling and walking strategy. Dunyeats Road in my constituency is suffering from multiple issues that are causing people and traffic to collide. Will she consider allowing councils to bring forward those crossings?
Lilian Greenwood
The hon. Lady probably knows that the active travel commissioner, Chris Boardman, is a huge fan of side road zebra crossings and the potential they have. That is why we have said in the cycling and walking investment strategy that we intend to legislate for them in future.
Andrew Cooper (Mid Cheshire) (Lab)
By making accessibility one of GBR’s core priorities, this Labour Government are finally putting the improvement of accessibility at the heart of the rail network. How will stations such as Northwich railway station be able to access accessibility improvement funding to deliver the accessible station that my constituents deserve?
Heidi Alexander
My hon. Friend will know that we are spending £280 million on improving station accessibility during this spending review. I will seek to find new opportunities to fund further work on stations as part of future spending discussions, and I expect the new integrated leadership of GBR to work closely with local councils, mayors and parliamentarians to maximise future opportunities.
Rebecca Paul (Reigate) (Con)
The Secretary of State will know that e-bikes do not require insurance, but we are seeing some pedestrians suffer catastrophic injuries due to the additional weight of these bikes compared with a normal bike. Is she giving any consideration to reviewing the rules on this issue?
Lilian Greenwood
The hon. Lady is right to raise concerns about the use of illegal e-bikes and the danger they cause on our roads. New powers in the Crime and Policing Act 2026 mean that the police can seize e-bikes classed as motor vehicles when they are being used antisocially without the need to give a warning.
Brian Leishman (Alloa and Grangemouth) (Lab)
Fuel is being transported hundreds of miles from Stanlow in Cheshire to Scottish airports, increasing emissions and undermining our local fuel distribution industry. What will the Department do, alongside the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero, the Department for Business and Trade and the Scotland Office, to protect fuel security and Scottish jobs, including those of tanker drivers?
Keir Mather
Fuel security and the Scottish jobs that it underpins are of incredible importance to this Government. We remain in regular contact with both the Scottish Government and other devolved Governments to ensure that we are ready to respond in a co-ordinated manner should any disruption to our fuel and refining capabilities arise.
Helen Morgan (North Shropshire) (LD)
If a person has a pram, heavy luggage or a bike, or is disabled, it is difficult to use the railway if there is no step-free access. Further to the Secretary of State’s answer to the hon. Member for Mid Cheshire (Andrew Cooper), can she outline whether rural areas will be prioritised for step-free access in the future? For many of those people, there are no alternative forms of transport.
Heidi Alexander
When we are investing in the accessibility of stations in the future, we need to get maximum benefit for the travelling public. I hope to have future discussions about future rounds of the Access for All scheme—improvements are being rolled out at 31 stations under that scheme, as a result of the £280 million I mentioned earlier.
Ruth Cadbury (Brentford and Isleworth) (Lab)
Thank you, Mr Speaker. I am sure that you and all Members of this House are hoping to get a holiday in at some point during this recess, so I wish you a hassle-free journey out and back home.
My Committee is today launching an inquiry on safer journeys for women and girls. The Minister for local transport, my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham South (Lilian Greenwood), has set out the Department’s actions contributing to the Government’s goal of halving violence against women and girls within 10 years. What will the Transport Secretary be doing to monitor and measure the effectiveness of those actions?
Heidi Alexander
I am very grateful to my hon. Friend and her Committee for their interest in personal safety on the transport network, especially that of women and girls. We have an ambitious, evidence-based programme to tackle VAWG on the transport network, and we are delivering nine commitments under the “Freedom from violence and abuse” strategy, including funding to improve CCTV connectivity between stations and the British Transport police. We are also launching mandatory crime and antisocial behaviour training for bus industry staff.
Aphra Brandreth (Chester South and Eddisbury) (Con)
Baddington bridge has been under a 7.5 tonne weight restriction since September 2025, with an hour-long diversion, leading to significant additional costs for local businesses and farms. Without a workable alternative, some drivers are ignoring the restriction, causing damage and disruption to country roads and nearby bridges. Will the Minister work with me and urgently review Cheshire East council’s application to the structures fund, so that we can reopen the bridge as soon as possible?
Simon Lightwood
I will of course meet the hon. Lady. Applications for the structures fund are still open, and we will make a decision in due course on any applications made.
Marsha De Cordova (Battersea) (Lab)
In February this year, the Albert bridge in my constituency was closed. This, coupled with changes to Battersea Bridge Road and the surrounding roads implemented by Transport for London, is causing significant delays, disruption and congestion. Despite my painstaking attempts to engage with TfL over the past five months, it is proving quite difficult. TfL is not engaging with the lived experience of my constituents and myself, so will the Secretary of State engage with TfL on my behalf, to ensure that it engages and works with the constituency MP?
Simon Lightwood
Ministers are in close contact with TfL on a range of issues, including this one, and obviously the structures fund is open for applications, should the parties involved wish to pursue that route.
Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)
Earlier this year the Minister for roads, the hon. Member for Wakefield and Rothwell (Simon Lightwood), wrote to me to say that Hammersmith bridge in my constituency would be a suitable candidate for the structures fund, but Hammersmith and Fulham council has just decided not to make an application on the basis that the structures fund is not suitable for repairs. Will the Minister please meet me as a matter of urgency to determine whether the structures fund remains a suitable way of funding repairs to Hammersmith bridge?
Simon Lightwood
I would be happy to meet the hon. Lady, but I will say once again that we would welcome an application from Hammersmith and Fulham council for the bridge in question.
Gareth Snell (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab/Co-op)
Longton station in my constituency was allocated money from the transforming cities fund to have a lift installed. Unfortunately, that money was reallocated by the city council towards some paving slabs. Can I have a meeting with the Department to look at how we can get funding back for lifts at Longton station and then protect that money so that it cannot be reallocated to other projects?
Heidi Alexander
I would be happy to meet my hon. Friend to discuss this issue. One of the key things that we are trying to do is improve public transport nodes, so I would be interested to discuss this matter with him further.
Sarah Smith (Hyndburn) (Lab)
Haslingden Old Road in my constituency has been shut for two years due to a landslip. Will the Minister support me in urging Reform-led Lancashire county council to get this road reopened, as it is such a vital backbone going through my constituency?
Simon Lightwood
I encourage the local authority to get a grip of this issue. Of course, Reform-led councils do not have a great record. It is the party with the most councils that are red-rated on potholes and so on, and I encourage it to take action on this issue.
James Wild (North West Norfolk) (Con)
Passengers on the Fen line from King’s Lynn are suffering repeated cancellations and an unacceptably poor level of service. Now that the Government control both the track and the trains, will the Transport Secretary intervene and demand a robust action plan to sort out this poor performance?
Heidi Alexander
As I said earlier, publicly owned operators are performing better, on average, when it comes to reliability and cancellations. On the particular issue with the Fen line that the hon. Gentleman raises on behalf of his constituents, I will seek more information about what is causing the problems there and what plans the local operators have to improve the situation for him and his constituents.
Dame Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central and West) (Lab)
Businesses and individuals are increasingly discovering the advantages of living and working in the north-east—and no doubt the north-west, too—but unreliable train wi-fi means that journeys to the regions are too often dead time. I know that the Government are investing in technology to improve wi-fi services, but can the Minister tell me when we will see reliable wi-fi on LNER services, so that the whole nation’s productivity can be improved?
Heidi Alexander
As I said in answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Camborne and Redruth (Perran Moon), we are planning to begin procurement for enhanced wi-fi across the rail network later this year. That will include LNER, because in the spending review the Chancellor allocated £57 million to deploy low earth orbit satellite technology on our mainline trains. We need to get that procurement done, and then it can be rolled out from there.
Tessa Munt (Wells and Mendip Hills) (LD)
For many, rural bus services are the only way to buy food, to get to work, school or medical appointments, or to access services. A shuttle bus is meant to replace the 173 First Bus service during six months of roadworks on rural roads, but would-be passengers could not find any details or get through to the operator, and they were left standing in extreme heat at the roadside. Will the Minister ensure that when routes are disrupted, operators and local transport authorities provide clear, accessible and timely information so that passengers are not left stranded?
Simon Lightwood
It is important that when bus services are disrupted, people are given timely information to ensure that they can undertake their journey. I will reiterate that all local authorities and bus operators should do just that.
Sonia Kumar (Dudley) (Lab)
I am delighted that the midlands metro tram line will connect Dudley with the rest of the west midlands. However, the construction has caused disruption to local businesses such as the Dubliner’s, and repeated delays have exacerbated that. What support can the Minister provide to businesses that are being impacted by the repeated delays to the tram?
Heidi Alexander
I am obviously sorry to hear about the disruption to businesses in my hon. Friend’s constituency. Let me take this issue away for her and talk to the Mayor of the West Midlands and all relevant parties to ascertain whether anything can be done to mitigate the impact on her constituents.
Lincoln Jopp (Spelthorne) (Con)
All my residents in Spelthorne and I are desperate to get Spelthorne’s five stations into the travelcard zone. The Secretary of State has looked at this in the past, but will she look again, with South Western Railway, at the financial modelling being used to say that it is not possible? I think a load more people would use that trainline if it were in the travelcard zone.
Heidi Alexander
I appreciate the importance of affordability to the travelling public, and I understand the desire of the hon. Gentleman’s constituents to see lower fares. We are rolling out pay-as-you-go ticketing to make journeys frictionless in the south-east, but there are currently no plans to expand that London-wide fare payment zone.
Perran Moon (Camborne and Redruth) (Lab)
Whenever the Secretary of State reviews the ZEV mandate, will she confirm that she will consider the entire electric vehicle supply chain, including the billions invested in domestic lithium mining, battery production and charge point operators, and not just the views of ICE-based legacy car manufacturers?
Keir Mather
My hon. Friend is right to point to the fact that the EV industry depends on not only automotive manufacturers but the billions of pounds in the charge point sector and the workers who underpin it. Throughout our consideration of the ZEV mandate, we will ensure that our environmental obligations are met alongside making good business sense for all relevant partners in the sector.
Dr Danny Chambers (Winchester) (LD)
We very much welcome the Government’s initiative to give children free bus travel throughout the summer—it is a great idea. The only problem is that in Winchester and its surrounding area, Hampshire county council keeps cutting funding for bus services. Will the Minister explain what the Department is doing to encourage councils and operators to increase rather than decrease bus services?
Simon Lightwood
In addition to delivering £3 billion across the country—we have a new, formula-led way of doing that, rather than the competitive allocations of the previous Government—we have given local transport authorities increased powers to take back control of bus services, be that through enhanced partnerships, franchising or local authority-led bus companies.
Ben Obese-Jecty (Huntingdon) (Con)
Some 40% of roads in Cambridgeshire take up roughly 80% of the highways budget. With the forthcoming announcement about local government reorganisation in Cambridgeshire, what assessment has the Department made of the feasibility of that being deliverable given that most of those roads will end up in the same, much smaller unitary authority?
Simon Lightwood
We continue to liaise closely with other Government Departments during the reorganisation. I am obviously happy to enter into further conversations with the hon. Member on his specifics.
Max Wilkinson (Cheltenham) (LD)
Cheltenham train passengers have a continual frustration with the turnaround time at Gloucester. There is also a new frustration: I wonder whether the Secretary of State or a Minister can tell me why so many trains due to terminate at Cheltenham unexpectedly terminate at Gloucester?
Heidi Alexander
The Rail Minister often tells me that the art of answering questions on transport is to have all the detail at your fingertips. I must disappoint the hon. Gentleman, as I do not have the specific answer he seeks, but I promise him that I will go away, find out and come back to him.
Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)
One of my constituents was nearly knocked over on a dedicated cycle path by an illegal e-bike. Riders in the gig economy in particular ride fast and dangerously. What steps are being taken to tackle the demands of illegal bikes in the gig economy?
Lilian Greenwood
Dangerous behaviour by any road user is, of course, completely unacceptable. We are aware of the concerns raised about the use of illegal e-bikes, particularly in relation to the gig economy. My Department has commissioned specific research into those issues so that we can better plan action to tackle that.
Tom Gordon (Harrogate and Knaresborough) (LD)
In my capacity as chair of the all-party parliamentary group on cabin air quality, I recently met pilots and cabin crew about the impact of fume events and the lifelong consequences that they can have for them. What steps are the Government taking to investigate, research, regulate and mitigate those issues?
Keir Mather
Let me thank the hon. Gentleman for his question. Air quality in relation to both pilot and passenger safety is of real concern to the Department for Transport. We undertake work constantly to monitor the impact of cabin air quality on those affected groups, and I would be glad to have a further conversation with him to take that work further.
Mr Speaker
Before we come to the urgent question on British Steel, can I say that I am amazed that a statement was not brought to the House on this very important matter that affects different constituencies? Nothing ever seems to change, but can the message go back that just telling me is not an answer? This is a big issue for MPs who serve constituencies with steel jobs; it is not one that should have to be brought to the House under an urgent question.
British Steel
(3 weeks, 6 days ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Urgent Questions are proposed each morning by backbench MPs, and up to two may be selected each day by the Speaker. Chosen Urgent Questions are announced 30 minutes before Parliament sits each day.
Each Urgent Question requires a Government Minister to give a response on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Mr Joshua Reynolds (Maidenhead) (LD)
(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Business and Trade if he will make a statement on the nationalisation of British Steel.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Blair McDougall)
I express regret and apologies, Mr Speaker, not only for the issue you just raised, but that we were not able to lay the regulations before Parliament before they came into force. After very careful consideration informed by the significant commercial and diplomatic sensitivities involved in the transfer, and to ensure operational continuity, the Government decided that it was necessary for the acquisition to take place outside of working hours.
Following Royal Assent of the Steel Industry (Nationalisation) Act 2026, the Secretary of State has taken the decision that it is necessary, in the public interest, to exercise the powers in the Act to transfer British Steel into public ownership. We have not taken the decision lightly, but we consider that it is the only viable route forward in the circumstances. British Steel is among the UK’s largest steel producers and has an important capability in the production of several essential steel products that are integral to the construction and maintenance of our critical national infrastructure.
I reiterate the Government’s thanks to parliamentarians on all sides for their constructive approach during passage of the Act. Today’s decisive action secures British Steel’s immediate future, secures steelmaking in support of our steel strategy, and supports the jobs and steelmaking communities that have underpinned the business for decades.
Mr Reynolds
We have a duty to stand by our steel sector, especially as it navigates unprecedented challenges such as President Trump’s unfair steel tariffs, China’s anti-competitive state aid practices, and the transition to environmentally sustainable production methods. If we are to foster a thriving steel economy, we cannot allow more producers to collapse, we cannot allow more jobs to be lost and we cannot risk our last blast furnaces going cold. That is why the Liberal Democrats welcomed the steel industry legislation as a temporary, emergency and targeted step specifically aimed at turning around British Steel before it can be returned to the private sector.
I am particularly glad that the Government accepted many Liberal Democrat amendments to the steel industry Bill, even if they did not accept them in this place and they had to be tabled in the other place instead. Our amendments require the Secretary of State to have regard to the costs of nationalisation and to come back to this House for approval before tabling regulations. Furthermore, our amendments require the consideration of environmental liabilities in any valuation because, as we all know, public ownership without public accountability is not a plan. The changes we secured strengthened the legislation and direct the Act and the Government’s broader steel strategy towards a truly sustainable footing in the long term, while giving taxpayers true value for money.
The Act is now law and the House has still not been told how any of this is going to end, so I have three questions for the Minister. First, Jingye has said it has started the process to seek compensation from the Government for nationalisation; will the Minister confirm what compensation Jingye is asking for, the Government’s assessment of the amount, and how the House will be able to scrutinise any compensation paid?
Secondly, precision-engineering firms throughout the country have confirmed that they cannot buy the specialist grades of steel they need from the approved domestic supply list because they are not manufactured in the UK. Owning a steel company is not the same as having steel capability. What plan is there to widen the range of grades that British Steel can produce to support British industry?
Finally, what process has been arranged for new private co-investors to come in to help to modernise the sites? Without them, the taxpayer is not the rescuer of British Steel but ends up being its permanent owner.
Blair McDougall
British Steel is now owned by the people. We will appoint non-executive directors and a board to take forward the transformation of the company so that it becomes productive, profitable and resilient. Part of the conversation will, of course, be about how the company can act in support of the wider objectives of the steel strategy, including the issues the hon. Gentleman raised in respect of the availability of specialist grades of steel.
The hon. Gentleman asked what compensation Jingye is asking for. We have been in discussions with the company, as we were looking for a commercial solution, but we did not feel we were going to get value for the taxpayer. The company has been running at a loss for some time. That said, in the autumn we will, through regulations, appoint an independent valuer to make a judgment on any compensation that is due, and that could be nil.
Luke Myer (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Lab)
Teessiders know what it looks like when Governments stand back and fail to protect steel jobs, so on behalf of the British steelworkers in my constituency who work at Special Profiles in Skinningrove and Teesside Beam Mill at Lackenby, I thank the Government for their decision to step in and protect primary steelmaking in this country. They have preserved jobs and preserved our industry, and the decision will allow British Steel to modernise and prepare for the future, but one of the critical challenges in doing so will be addressing industrial energy costs. I am aware of the decisions that the Government have taken on energy to support industry. What more decisions will they take to bring down costs and make sure that there is a competitive environment for British Steel going forward?
Blair McDougall
My hon. Friend is quite right to say that steelmaking communities have been impacted by previous Governments standing by rather than intervening —we have seen it in community after community over decades. As a Community trade union member, I am very aware of that. On energy costs, he will be aware of the various interventions that we are making through the supercharger and the uplift in network charging compensation, and we also have the British industrial competitiveness scheme. A key priority for the new board will be looking at ways to reduce costs, and a huge part of that will be investing to help with energy costs.
Rebecca Paul (Reigate) (Con)
Britain’s steel industry is not competitive, because of high energy costs and excessive red tape, but instead of addressing the root causes, this Labour Government revert back to their default solution of nationalisation. Why are this Government so keen to take us back to the 1970s? If we cannot bring our ruinous energy costs under control, Britain’s steel industry will never be profitable and the UK taxpayer will be left footing the bill.
Can the Minister confirm how much working capital has been provided and the forecast cost to the taxpayer? Will it be more than the £2.5 billion that has been set aside in this Parliament for steel, and if so, where will the money come from? Will the Government provide compensation to Jingye, and what assessment have they made of the threat of legal action from China over nationalisation? The previous Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Jonathan Reynolds), said that the Government would seek to find a buyer for British Steel, and several parties have expressed interest. Are discussions ongoing with those parties, and if not, why not?
In March 2025, the Government received advice on the state of the blast furnaces in Scunthorpe, the cost of decommissioning and land remediation. Can the Minister tell the House the state of the blast furnaces, how long their lifespan is, and the expected cost of remediating the site? We cannot allow British Steel to become a multibillion-pound liability for the taxpayer without any scrutiny, so when will the Minister next provide an update on British Steel to the House?
Blair McDougall
Let me begin with the hon. Lady’s question about relations with China. We have been very clear that this decision was made in the national interest, not because of the national identity of those who previously owned the site. We have been very clear in the steel strategy that we think the future of UK steel will be determined in partnership with the private sector and will require co-investment. That was the approach that we took with Tata and have taken elsewhere in the sector, and we have made significant resources available to encourage new private entrants into the sector.
I slightly take issue with the hon. Lady’s “year zero” approach, which suggests that British steelmaking was in a fantastic state under her Government. Crude production has fallen by 50% over the last 10 years, and we have seen community after community abandoned. I simply do not accept the idea that we will all be wearing flares and kipper ties and going back to the 1970s because we have a Government who are willing to intervene, rather than standing by and letting people and communities fall on to the scrapheap.
Gareth Snell (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab/Co-op)
I say to the Minister that we should never apologise for taking bold action that protects well-paid, unionised jobs in this country and is crucial to the reindustrialisation of our nation, which we know is the future policy agenda.
Further to the point made by the hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mr Reynolds), I have companies in my own constituency such as Langley Alloys, Hallmark Fabrication, Don-Bur, Brown McFarlane and Glebe Engineering that are all going to be impacted by the quotas and tariffs, because the grades of steel they need are not made in the UK. Now that we have this capability in public hands, do the Government intend to extend the range of steel that we make domestically, so that we can feed our domestic manufacturers and producers with the grades of steel they need?
Blair McDougall
As my hon. Friend will be aware, the point of the steel strategy is to do exactly what he describes, which is to ensure that a far greater proportion of UK demand, including for specialist steels, is produced in the UK. That demand will increase significantly in the coming years, not least because of the industrial strategy. We have owned British Steel for all of 11 hours, and the board is being appointed, but it is fair to say that the issues he raises will be among those that the new board will want to address.
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
What concerns me is the jobs of my constituents who work at Scunthorpe. That is all I am worried about; I have no ideological objection. If it is what is needed now, fair enough. As long as the blast furnaces are totally uneconomic because of high energy costs, however, it can only be a sticking plaster. I was struck by the question put to the Minister by his own Back Bencher, the hon. Member for Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland (Luke Myer)—there is no point my demanding that we scrap green energy and all that sort of stuff—so will he take that away and do more with grants to ensure Scunthorpe’s blast furnaces are competitive on world markets?
Blair McDougall
I thank the Father of the House for the spirit in which he asks that question. The key moment for jobs was the intervention last year, which resulted in the cancellation of the consultation on about 2,700 redundancies. The blast furnaces on the site will continue for some time to come. We have said in our steel strategy that we believe the future of the industry is in modernised, cleaner technologies. I am sure that will be at the forefront of the minds of the new board members as they look to transform and modernise the site.
Chris Bloore (Redditch) (Lab)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mr Reynolds) on securing this urgent question, and the Minister on his answer and on the Government’s bold action. Redditch manufacturers rely on British Steel, and to be frank, want more and different grades of it to expand their own production. I fully support the measure taken today—or, rather, last night—but can the Minister explain to us what engagement is happening on the ground to reassure workers?
Blair McDougall
This decision is of critical importance to the entire economy, our national security and our national infrastructure. However, as the Father of the House has said, it is also a matter of getting to the end of the month for thousands of people. This morning, the workers on the site have been briefed on the decision. We would expect the new board to remain deeply engaged with the workforce, who will be central to ensuring a revitalised and resilient future for British Steel.
Martin Vickers (Brigg and Immingham) (Con)
Thank you, Mr Speaker, for your earlier comment. It is surprising that the Secretary of State is not here to make a statement before he visits Scunthorpe, which I understand he is doing today.
Like the Father of House, I have no objections to—and have supported the Government on—saving the steelworks by nationalisation, but it can only be a short to medium-term solution. The challenges—most notably, energy costs—remain. If, as the steel Minister has previously said to me, the Government are looking to attract private investment into the industry, will he acknowledge that energy costs must be dealt with before that investment will follow?
Blair McDougall
I absolutely agree with the hon. Gentleman on that point. The Government are very clear today that we are seeking that partnership with the private sector across the steel industry. From our side, the partnership comes with significant resources on the table, through the National Wealth Fund, to help the steel industry become more competitive, particularly on energy efficiency.
John Slinger (Rugby) (Lab)
Our energy, defence and railway sectors depend on steel. Does my hon. Friend agree that steel made by British workers, in Britain, and owned by the British people, is not only in our infrastructure interest but in our national interest?
Blair McDougall
I could not agree more. On a day when many of us will be thinking about travelling back to our constituencies by rail for the summer, it is worth noting that 80% of the rails we will be travelling on are made by British Steel. My hon. Friend raises an important point about taking more steps to ensure, as taxpayers would expect, that when we engage in public procurement British Steel is firmly in the mix.
Richard Tice (Boston and Skegness) (Reform)
Congratulations to the Government on doing what I have been urging for seven years, which is to take this strategic national asset into public ownership. What is needed now is a comprehensive, bold vision for the blast furnaces. I am concerned about the talk about more electric arc furnaces. We already have them at Rotherham, and others are being built down in Port Talbot. We need a comprehensive vision to invest in blast furnace plate mills, so we have a real job-creating, world-class industry based around Scunthorpe in the great county of Lincolnshire. How long will it take to get that vision, so that we know which way we are going?
Blair McDougall
As the steel strategy set out, we believe the most sustainable and competitive future across the industry in general is through technologies such as electric arc. The blast furnaces at Scunthorpe will be operational for the immediate term. We are now 11 hours and five minutes into the ownership of the site. The issues that the hon. Gentleman raises will be high on the to-do list of the new board, as we appoint them shortly.
Robbie Moore (Keighley and Ilkley) (Con)
Many manufacturing businesses in Keighley and Ilkley, including GESIPA, Airedale Springs and Olicana Products, are deeply concerned about the tariffs and quotas associated with the national steel strategy. They have said to me that the measures will result in increased costs, reduced supply and weakening competitiveness, and will directly threaten jobs in Keighley. Can the Minister outline a response to the managing directors of those businesses on the concerns that they have raised directly with me about the steel strategy that the Government are adopting?
Blair McDougall
The hon. Gentleman will be aware that the measures we took were necessary because of the ending of the steel safeguards. Without the measures we took, there was a real prospect of our becoming the global dumping ground for uncompetitively subsidised over-production. That being said, the Minister for Industry, the Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade, my hon. Friend the Member for Stockton North (Chris McDonald), has been meeting manufacturers and listening to those concerns. That is why we have the transitional arrangements and have ensured that they will be reviewed after 12 months. It is also, frankly, why we are working so hard with the EU to ensure we get mutual arrangements there as well.
Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)
The Liberal Democrats supported the passage of the Steel Industry (Nationalisation) Bill, but we tabled amendments, in my name and in those of my hon. Friends, to increase the provision of scrutiny and transparency under the Bill. The Government voted those amendments down in this place, but then had a change of heart and supported them in the other place. Given that, it is extremely disappointing that a move of this magnitude has been made and no statement has been made to the House. On the change of heart in the Lords, was that merely a sticking plaster, or is there a genuine commitment to give parliamentarians scrutiny of the important decisions being made about the future of our steel industry?
Blair McDougall
As the Minister for Industry has set out, on the issue of cost, it is our intention to continue with the practice under the previous Act of coming to Parliament on a quarterly basis with a written ministerial statement to set out the costs. As we appoint the new board, we will also be keen for the owners and operators of British Steel to be accountable to Select Committees.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
Steelmaking is clearly important for our national security. Some of the issues for British Steel are the costs that it has and the full orderbook that it needs to remain sustainable. What will the Government do to ensure that British Steel turns out steel at a competitive rate, and that it gets the orders that it needs?
Blair McDougall
On the point about a competitive rate, I refer the hon. Gentleman to an answer I gave a moment ago on the investment the Government are putting in across the steel industry to ensure costs are reduced. On the orderbook, through the work we are doing on public procurement, we are ensuring that there is a clearer line of sight for British steel producers—both publicly owned British Steel and others—on all the coming work linked to investment in national infrastructure or the industrial strategy, so that they get a fair shake at those contracts.
Ayoub Khan (Birmingham Perry Barr) (Ind)
I welcome the nationalisation of British Steel, not least because it protects critical infrastructure needs, as well as local jobs and neighbourhoods. On procurement and competition rules, what assessment have the Government made to ensure British Steel does not fall foul of regulations on supplying steel within the United Kingdom?
Blair McDougall
As Minister with responsibility for regulations, if there are any particular regulatory issues that the hon. Gentleman has in mind, I encourage him to bring them to me and I will pursue them across the system. In addition to the reviewed guidance that we have given to ensure British Steel is in the mix for procurement, the clean industry bonus scheme—for offshore wind, for example—will incentivise its use.
Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)
I appreciate the point that the Minister made about the taxpayer having only owned British Steel for a matter of hours, and how the board is still being appointed. It is, however, imperative that the Government are clear, once the board is appointed, what the strategic priorities are for the board—as opposed to British Steel at large. Top of those priorities must be a timescale to get to profitability. Can the Minister—or his successor—commit to ensuring that the red lines set for the board are made clear to this House as soon as it returns in September, when the board will have been functional for five or six weeks?
Blair McDougall
I am disappointed in the hon. Gentleman’s lack of faith in my career prospects. I am sure that the Minister for Industry, who has deep expertise in steel and is an excellent Minister, intends to update the House on the strategic objectives of the new board.
James Wild (North West Norfolk) (Con)
The Minister failed to respond to any of the questions asked by the shadow Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Reigate (Rebecca Paul), so I will try again: some companies have expressed an interest in the business, so what discussions is the Minister, or his colleagues, having with potential buyers?
Blair McDougall
We did not take the decision lightly, and we would have preferred commercial options. We are now 11 hours and 12 minutes into ownership of the company. We are deeply committed and open to private sector partnerships to ensure the future of British Steel, and that is an essential and early part of the conversation.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
As always, the Minister is positive and giving us encouragement. I welcome the steps that have been taken to secure the wider British steel industry, but I will press the Minister on the critical issue facing manufacturing in Northern Ireland. As the Minister will know, under the Windsor framework, businesses in Northern Ireland are being hit by a double whammy of 50% tariffs on imports exceeding the slashed quotas. That is catastrophic for our engineering firms, so will the Minister commit to urgent discussions with the Northern Ireland Executive and local businesses to resolve the tariff anomaly, protect internal UK trade, and ensure that Northern Ireland’s manufacturing backbone is not broken by an unintended own goal?
Blair McDougall
Having got through this urgent question without making any commitments on behalf of my hon. Friend the Minister for Industry, I will give one now and say that I am sure he would agree to the meetings the hon. Gentleman suggests. There are specific arrangements within the trade measures we have taken that are intended to ensure the flow of steel into Northern Ireland, and there is advice for GB companies taking steel products into Northern Ireland. The hon. Gentleman’s question again highlights the importance of having that ongoing conversation with the EU, because we are not the EU’s problem when it comes to steel, and it is not ours.
Speaker’s Statement
(3 weeks, 6 days ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate
Mr Speaker
Before we come to business questions, I wish everybody a pleasant recess. I hope we get some downtime; it seems to have been a very heavy Session so far. To the staff of the House, thank you for all that you do—to all our Doorkeepers, security and everybody who works here, but none more so than those who work in the Tea Room and the Dining Rooms. To those who are leaving the House, I wish you well for the future.
Business of the House
(3 weeks, 6 days ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Jesse Norman (Hereford and South Herefordshire) (Con)
Will the Leader of the House give us the forthcoming business?
The Leader of the House of Commons (Sir Alan Campbell)
The business for the week commencing 31 August will include:
Tuesday 1 September—Debate on a motion relating to sovereign grants, following the message from His Majesty the King, followed by a debate on a motion on the impact of strategic lawsuits against public participation. The subject for this debate was determined by the Backbench Business Committee.
Wednesday 2 September—Remaining stages of the Representation of the People Bill.
Thursday 3 September—Second Reading of the Sporting Events Bill [Lords].
Friday 4 September—Private Members’ Bills.
The provisional business for the week commencing 7 September includes:
Monday 7 September—Remaining stages of the Health Bill—day one.
Tuesday 8 September—Conclusion of remaining stages of the Health Bill.
Jesse Norman
I thank the Leader of the House for the business.
This seems a moment for the words of Philip Larkin:
“What will survive of us is love.”
It is a day of sadness and departings. I know that the whole House will want to join me in saluting the England football team. I simply say this to them: you went out to a foreign field, you fought like true lions, and you did us proud. Thank you.
Let us also pay tribute to Ann Widdecombe for her bravery, spirit and independence of mind. There is a book of condolence in the Members’ Library, which I know many Members will wish to sign.
Ann’s politics were not especially my politics, Mr Speaker, but let me tell you a story that illustrates my personal experience of her a little. We were at a dinner of the Holborn and St Pancras Conservatives—a vibrant local organisation—in the time of the late Frank Dobson, where Ann was the guest speaker. At the end of the evening, a bottle signed by her was thrust into my hands and I was asked to invite her to auction it. You will recall, Mr Speaker, that she had just had a bit of a dust-up with the noble Lord Howard on the subject of which she had said that he had “something of the night” about him. Quick as a flash, holding this bottle of whisky, she said, “Ladies and gentlemen, what will you give me for something of the nightcap?” I thought that pretty game, under the circumstances.
This week has featured a certain amount of rancour, as the late Roy Jenkins might have put it. The Government found themselves changing the business twice and cancelling an Opposition day debate they themselves had scheduled and reaffirmed only the previous day on the entirely bogus excuse that they wanted an urgent debate on Iran. That debate was so urgent and important that it was opened by the most junior Minister in Government, finished two hours early and featured precisely three—count them: three—speeches from Labour Back Benchers. I think we can all agree that it will be a tragedy if we lose the Leader of the House from business questions, but if he is not promoted after the embarrassing heroics he has performed this week on behalf of the new Prime Minister, it will be a huge injustice.
But we are not going to cast nasturtiums, in the words of a friend of mine, on any of this nonsense—not even on Baroness Lloyd and the hopeless Building Digital UK, who have entirely failed to address the issue of fibre broadband in neglected parts of my constituency and simply repeated the same language of incompetence and failure to me for more than a year now. I hope that the Leader of the House will pick that up.
No, we will cast no nasturtiums. There will be no rancour from this side of the House. I come to praise the outgoing Prime Minister, not to bury him. He is a transparently decent and honourable man who is dedicated to public service. He rescued the Labour party, and he worked with great diligence to lead this country. No one who has not been close to leadership of that kind can have any idea of how hard it is. We all owe him a great debt of gratitude.
As for the incoming Prime Minister, my advice is simply this: be careful what you wish for. He has had a coronation and an election hustings with just one candidate—a single name on the ballot paper—but on Monday afternoon, he will start to learn the true difficulty of the decisions that face him. There will be hard trade-offs that cannot be abolished by tinkering with the fiscal rules or still more tax and spend. Vibes will not be a solution to these problems. Eyelashes will not suffice. He will have to stand up and say, or perhaps decide, what it is he believes in. We can only hope that he will bring energy, frugality, a long-term focus, and a talented team adequate to the tasks ahead. We wish him very well.
I wish you, Mr Speaker, the Leader of the House and all the staff and Members of the House a summer break full of rest and happiness.
Sir Alan Campbell
Before I get on to the comments of the shadow Leader of the House, let me join him in paying tribute to Ann Widdecombe. Ann dedicated her life to public service and the causes that she believed in. The circumstances of her death are extremely distressing, and my thoughts and, I am sure, those of the whole House are with Ann’s family and loved ones.
I cannot claim to have known Ann well. We did not agree on many issues, but we agreed very strongly on the issue of foxhunting, on which she was extraordinarily brave in the stand that she took. We shared a belief in public service and that politics matters to people. I smiled at the anecdote that the shadow Leader of the House told and the reference to the nightcap. I suspect we will read about that in one of his books in the future.
I also pay tribute to Lord Christopher, who passed away this week. He had an incredible career in public service. He was the oldest serving British parliamentarian and the last Member of Parliament to have served in world war two. My thoughts and, I am sure, those of the whole House are with his friends and family.
On House matters, this morning the Modernisation Committee published a report on a formal scheme for acting Select Committee Chairs. Select Committees perform a vital role in scrutinising the Government. The recommendations will ensure that Committees can continue their critical work, even if their Chairs need to take a period of absence. It sets out a new framework for the appointment, status and remuneration of acting Select Committee Chairs. I thank the Liaison and Procedure Committees for their work in this regard, and I will put the matter before the House in due course.
I join the right hon. Gentleman in thanking the England football team. It was not the result that the nation had hoped for, but the team showed passion and energy, certainly in the previous rounds, and we should be proud of them.
On the Iran debate, I thought the right hon. Gentleman was uncharacteristically churlish. I watched much of the debate, and what I did not watch I read in Hansard. I have to say—maybe after my remarks on Tuesday I need to build some bridges—that the right hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Wendy Morton) made a really good speech on Iran and set out her party’s position. Crucially, she set out the need for this House to show that we have a bipartisan approach to this issue. I would not want to undermine in any way—I am sure he was not trying to do so—the powerful speeches that were made by Members on both sides of the House. I felt that it was important before the recess to set out very clearly what this House thinks. I fervently hope that we will not need to recall the House over the recess, but if we need to on this or any other matter, we stand ready to do so.
I will take up the point that the right hon. Gentleman made about broadband with the relevant Minister.
I will close by thanking the shadow Leader of the House for his remarks about the Prime Minister, to whom I pay tribute. He has made this country stronger and fairer. The duty of a Prime Minister is to leave the country in a better place than they found it. Without question, the Prime Minister has done that. He leaves a lasting legacy. Just this week, he fulfilled his commitment to the Hillsborough families and secured the future of British Steel. I wish him well, and I wish his family well, for the future.
Sarah Owen (Luton North) (Lab)
They say that good things come to those who wait. After years of campaigning for new noise limits on fireworks by a number of organisations, from veterans’ charities to animal charities, and even by Deputy Speakers, we should all thank the Government for hearing all our constituents—especially those in Luton North who are kept awake night after night by nuisance fireworks—and for taking action. Will the Leader of the House make time in this Chamber for us to discuss what a difference that action will make to the lives of thousands of residents in all our constituencies?
Sir Alan Campbell
My hon. Friend talks of a matter that I know has been raised in sessions such as this and by many others across the House. It matters to constituents. I am sure that my hon. Friend realises that there is a written statement today that announces that we are launching a consultation on firework legislation. It is an important matter. Once that consultation is under way and the findings are decided on, I am sure the appropriate Minister will want to come to the House to make a statement, or we may indeed have a debate on the matter because it is of such importance.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
Bobby Dean (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)
I join the Leader of the House in his comments about Ann Widdecombe. She was a conviction politician and she was respected for that. I join Mr Speaker, and I am sure Madam Deputy Speaker as well, in thanking the staff for all their service over the course of the term.
I had hoped to start by triumphantly demanding the confirmation of a bank holiday, but I will have to change tack slightly and desperately plea with the Government to give us a day off anyway so that we can get over the trauma of last night.
More importantly, I raise something that I do not think our nation talks about enough, which is the weather and, more specifically, the relationship between the weather and climate change. A study that came out this week said that of the 2,500 articles about extreme weather over the last few weeks, 72%—the vast majority—made no mention at all of climate change. That is despite the fact that scientists tell us that the link between the two is indisputable. The idea that this is a freak, one-off event is, frankly, for the birds, and the Met Office has confirmed this week that
“the climate of the 20th century has now gone.”
The number of days at over 30° in London has quadrupled and the warm weather is even moving further north.
The impact is pretty serious, and we have seen it on our schools, our hospitals, our workplaces and public transport, which have all ground to a halt at times. More seriously, 2,700 deaths in May and June have been linked to heat-related causes. Will the Leader of the House organise for the relevant Minister to come to this place and explain the link between extreme heat and climate change, and lay out what the Government are set to do to mitigate the effects?
Sir Alan Campbell
As the hon. Gentleman says, climate change is already making heatwaves more frequent, longer lasting and more severe. We are absolutely committed to making sure that we are able to deal with our changing climate. We are transitioning to renewable energy, reducing greenhouse gas emissions to achieve net zero and adopting infrastructure for extreme weather. I note that there was a well-attended Westminster Hall debate this week on preparedness for extreme heat. When we return after the summer, there may be a strong case for either a statement or a debate to reflect on what has happened and what lessons we can learn.
Warinder Juss (Wolverhampton West) (Lab)
While visiting St Peter’s collegiate academy in my constituency, I spoke with Moses and Nana, pupils at the school. I was struck by how engaged they were with their schooling, and by their inquisitive nature, ambition, and desire to learn and succeed. Will the Leader of the House join me in commending St Peter’s school on the support that it gives to pupils? Will he also reassure all the schools in my constituency that this Government will ensure that funding for schools keeps pace with rising costs, so that schools can maintain high standards and meet increased expectations around inclusion, pastoral support and enrichment?
Sir Alan Campbell
I certainly join my hon. Friend in congratulating St Peter’s school on the support that it provides for students. I am delighted to hear that Moses and Nana are so eager to learn; that is a true testament to their hard work, as well as to the support of their families and the school staff. I reassure my hon. Friend that school funding is increasing by £1.7 billion in 2026-27, meaning that core school budgets will total £67 billion.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
I call the Chairman of the Backbench Business Committee.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
I trust that the Leader of the House will inform the Backbench Business Committee of any extra time we will get in September—or will prevail on his successor to do so—so that we can plan accordingly. The business in Westminster Hall in September will be as follows: on the day we come back, 1 September, there will be a debate on face-to-face banking in rural areas; on Thursday 3 September, there will be a debate on vaccination rates in England, followed by a debate on the security assessment on global diversity, ecosystem collapse and national security; on Tuesday 8 September, there will be a debate on the safety of the Jewish community; on Thursday 10 September, there will be a debate on the reform of the vascular care sector, followed by a debate on the contribution of fathers and positive male role models to families and society; and on Tuesday 15 September, there will be a debate on residential building safety remediation.
The incoming Prime Minister has announced that he wants the housing subsidy money available from the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government to be spent on social rent. I agree with that proposal. However, the London plan, which is out today, has dramatically reduced the amount of affordable housing that will be built—if it even gets to be built. That seems to be in direct contrast to what is needed in London. I hope that the Leader of the House will prevail on whoever will be the Secretary of State in the new Government to come to this House in early September and set out how the Government plan to ensure that we build the affordable housing that people in this country desperately need.
Sir Alan Campbell
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his work and the work of his Committee. On the time available for Backbench Business debates, he will know, because I just read out the business, that at the end of the day on which we return, we have found guaranteed time for the debate on SLAPPs that unfortunately could not take place last week. I anticipate that it will be a busy two weeks and two days, but I will certainly look for the time that he requests during that period; he would not expect me to do anything other than that. I will not make promises that I cannot keep—people want to prepare for debates, so I will not commit yet—but I am looking at that.
I thank the hon. Gentleman for what he said about the next Prime Minister’s comments on social housing. If there are new Secretaries of State, I am sure that when we return they will want to come and set out what changes—or, indeed, continuities—there will be in their Departments’ policies, because the House will want to know that.
Lewis Atkinson (Sunderland Central) (Lab)
Fulwell community library, which is run by a fantastic team of volunteers led by Richard Beck, provides a welcoming space for people to enjoy books and a cuppa, as I did there the other week. In the centre of Sunderland, Culture House, the new home of our city library, will be opening soon, providing access to books and learning seven days a week, thanks to the investment and decisions of the previous council administration. Will the Leader of the House celebrate the National Year of Reading, and consider giving time for a debate on the importance of library facilities? Does he agree that they are not vanity projects, but core facilities for our community?
Sir Alan Campbell
My hon. Friend is absolutely right to support Fulwell community library and the National Year of Reading, and I pay tribute to Richard Beck and all the others who are helping to make these things possible. Public libraries open up opportunities for everyone to access information and knowledge, and provide vital community spaces. We are investing £1.5 billion to save more than 1,000 local museums, art venues, libraries and heritage sites, ensuring access to culture for everyone. This is a particularly exciting time for my hon. Friend’s city, not least because we will be enjoying European football next season.
Neil O’Brien (Harborough, Oadby and Wigston) (Con)
The midland main line is in crisis. More than a quarter of our trains are being cancelled or are crazily late, and we find that even if people can get on, they will have to stand because so many are short form. The trains are falling apart; the air conditioning, toilets and doors do not work, and the windows are blown. We need a debate on this, because this happened because Department for Transport officials allowed our trains to be sent somewhere else in the country, even though they knew that our new trains were not going to arrive on time. My constituents want to know when the compensation will come, and whether they will get trains over the summer to stop this crisis getting worse, because at the moment, the Department is in denial. We need some proper answers.
Sir Alan Campbell
I am sorry to hear of the situation that the hon. Gentleman raises. I will take that back to ministerial colleagues and see if we can get an update. Should he seek a meeting with Ministers, I would be happy to arrange it.
Alison Taylor (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (Lab)
Two pupils from Trinity high school in Renfrew in my constituency recently won a public speaking competition run by the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service. Will the Leader of the House join me in congratulating the winners, Navya Joshi and Clara Boyd, and the school on their fantastic success?
Sir Alan Campbell
Of course I congratulate everybody involved. Public speaking is a fantastic way of not just, obviously, developing the ability to speak in public, but giving young people confidence. It is important that we literally give a voice to young people.
Clive Jones (Wokingham) (LD)
Nearly a thousand families of children with special educational needs and disabilities are supported by Camp Mohawk and its fantastic daycare centre in my constituency. Will the Leader of the House join me in recognising the invaluable support that charities such as Camp Mohawk provide to families in encouraging children with SEND to thrive and their families to relax?
Sir Alan Campbell
I certainly join the hon. Gentleman in paying tribute to the work of Camp Mohawk and, indeed, other organisations around our country. It is important not just for young people to get to spend time at camp, but that families get an opportunity to get some downtime. I certainly join him in welcoming Camp Mohawk and thanking it for everything it does.
Linsey Farnsworth (Amber Valley) (Lab)
This week, I attended an informative roundtable discussion with experts, including from the Alzheimer’s Society, Alzheimer’s Research UK and Dementia UK. I spoke about my dad, who is living with late-stage dementia. This is a pivotal moment for action on dementia, particularly given the advances in research in this field. I am hosting a constituency event to mark World Alzheimer’s Day in September. What steps are the Government taking to strengthen dementia care for those living with dementia and their loved ones?
Sir Alan Campbell
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for her tireless campaigning on this important matter. Across the last five financial years, we have spent more than £555 million on dementia research, including dementia diagnostics and trials of potential treatments. We are working to be at the front of transforming treatments and to be a world leader in dementia trial expertise. I will take back her comments to the relevant Minister and ensure that she gets an update, not just on what we are doing, but on our plans for the future.
Sarah Bool (South Northamptonshire) (Con)
Greatworth in my constituency is a beautiful village, yet it is beset with problems. Not only is peak High Speed 2 construction going on, causing road closures, but the village is having inordinate issues with Anglian Water. Residents face a hosepipe ban and a lack of water pressure, while a standing pipe is flooding, pouring out water constantly. I will raise that with Anglian Water, but after the recess, could we have a debate in Government time about the interaction of construction projects and water services, and ensuring that they all work for rural communities?
Sir Alan Campbell
The hon. Lady raises a very important point. I hope that Anglian Water has heard her comments and takes action, because these issues sound very serious indeed at any time of year, but particularly this time of year. We will have a debate on the clean water Bill. It will be about not just how the situation is fixed, but how we improve water services for the future.
Martin Rhodes (Glasgow North) (Lab)
The Commonwealth games festival fund will support a wide range of community events across my constituency, including Canal Quest on 1 August, Bike for Good taster sessions, the cultural programme at SWG3, and activities delivered by the Maryhill Integration Network and many other local organisations. Will the Leader of the House allow for a debate in Government time on the importance of ensuring that communities directly benefit from major events?
Sir Alan Campbell
My hon. Friend is a true champion for his constituency, and for community events and local organisations. Events such as Canal Quest and Bike for Good taster sessions are important for bringing communities together. If he is not able to catch your eye in the pre-recess Adjournment debate this afternoon, Mr Speaker, I encourage him to seek a Westminster Hall, when we return in September, on how major events can deliver even more for local communities.
Mr Joshua Reynolds (Maidenhead) (LD)
Over the last year, Royal Mail delivered just 75% of first-class post the next day, against a target of 93%. Ofcom has fined it nearly £40 million across three years and has opened a fourth investigation. Constituents in Maidenhead are still missing hospital appointments and other important business because letters do not arrive. The posties are doing their best, but the system is set up to fail. Will the Leader of the House allocate time for a debate on Royal Mail’s performance, so that the new Prime Minister’s Government can tell all our constituents when their post will actually get delivered?
Sir Alan Campbell
We have been very clear that Royal Mail’s service is unacceptable, and we will continue to say that as long as it is unacceptable. The public expect a well-run postal service, with letters arriving on time across the country. The Royal Mail has already been fined by Ofcom three times, and Ofcom continues to monitor its performance. As the hon. Gentleman may well know, the Business and Trade Committee has called Royal Mail into Parliament to hold it to account. I hope that Royal Mail listens to what he says this morning and reflects on what Parliament has done so far, because it is time that it provided his constituents, and all our constituents, with the service that it ought to.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
With a birthday business question, I call Claire Hazelgrove.
Claire Hazelgrove (Filton and Bradley Stoke) (Lab)
Thank you very much, Madam Deputy Speaker. The summer is a great time for families to create lasting memories, but it can also be an expensive time. Locally, I am hosting a free community advice drop-in event, bringing together local advice organisations. Fellow residents can come by to find out more about support that they may be entitled to around energy and water costs, debt advice and more. Will the Leader of the House join me in encouraging anyone who may need support across the Filton and Bradley Stoke constituency to come by, and in thanking everybody involved in providing local support?
Sir Alan Campbell
Madam Deputy Speaker, let me join you in saying happy birthday to my hon. Friend. I join her in thanking those providing important services and advice in our local communities. We recognise that summer can be a challenging time, not just because of the heat but because of increased costs. I wish her well with the event she is organising. We have introduced the Great British summer savings scheme to help people enjoy a day out for less. Families will be able to enjoy discounted attractions and meals out this summer.
Martin Vickers (Brigg and Immingham) (Con)
Earlier this week, the green flag awards were announced, and two parks in my constituency were successful: Baysgarth and Bridge View in Barton-upon-Humber. I congratulate the community groups that helped with that, but as well as support from community groups, parks need support from our local authorities, and it is important that sufficient resources are made available. Could the Leader of the House arrange for a statement when we return on local government finance for providing such facilities?
Sir Alan Campbell
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to raise the issue of the importance of parks. I am certain that Baysgarth and Bridge View parks are lovely places, and that their awards are well deserved. He talks about resources. Our flagship Pride in Place programme is giving up to £5.8 billion over 10 years to support 284 towns, and I hope we will be able to look at further ways to help. Pride in Place empowers local people to decide how best to look after their areas, and that includes deciding on what happens to their local parks.
David Williams (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Lab)
Back in April, I joined residents for a walk around the Mitchell Gardens estate in Kidsgrove, where Taylor Wimpey and its estate management company Trinity Estates are letting residents down by failing to maintain the estate, despite residents paying a significant amount in fees. Neither Taylor Wimpey nor Trinity Estates has responded to my requests for a meeting, some three months on. Does the Leader of the House agree that is completely unacceptable?
Sir Alan Campbell
I do agree. My hon. Friend is absolutely right that ignoring requests for meetings is simply unacceptable. I hope that Trinity Estates has heard his representations today and that it will engage with him in good faith to resolve this important matter for my hon. Friend, acting on behalf of his constituents, and for his constituents themselves.
Max Wilkinson (Cheltenham) (LD)
This summer brings good news in the Big Space Cancer Appeal, which Health Ministers are right behind. Will the Leader of the House join me in thanking the brilliant doctors behind the appeal, Charles Candish and Sam Guglani, and the many donors who are helping to pay for the £17.5 million new cancer centre at Cheltenham hospital? It would be a real boost for the campaign if the Leader of the House could get behind it and give a message to the council to get on with giving the centre planning permission.
Sir Alan Campbell
I certainly join the hon. Gentleman in paying tribute to everybody involved, including the medical staff. I hope that this will be the great step forward for Cheltenham that he is talking about. I hope that the council has heard his remarks. Of course, to some extent planning takes a little time, but we should be getting on with the project, because acting and doing more to tackle cancer, which this Government are absolutely committed to doing, is of such importance to local people and communities.
Dr Marie Tidball (Penistone and Stocksbridge) (Lab)
As the summer holidays approach and with all the lovely sunny weather, I really hope that children across my constituency take the chance to spend plenty of time playing outside. I know how important it is for their wellbeing and it is a priority for a number of my “Pride In” events across my constituency, in particular to improve play parks in Dragon park in Wharncliffe Side, Mortomley park in High Green and Coronation field in Dodworth. I am thrilled that our Labour Government have already put £18 million into creating and refurbishing playgrounds across England. Will the Leader of the House advise me on how I can access that funding for local playgrounds to ensure that children and young people growing up in my constituency can have better places to play?
Sir Alan Campbell
My hon. Friend is a fantastic champion for her local community. I will ensure that the Minister overseeing the scheme hears what she has said, and we will get her an update on how she can access the scheme to ensure that the success in her constituency continues and grows.
Aphra Brandreth (Chester South and Eddisbury) (Con)
Will the Leader of the House join me in congratulating Bertie, April, Oliver, Rhys and Isaac from Wrenbury primary school, who have successfully completed the horticulture, food and futures project run in partnership with Reaseheath college? This fantastic pilot has transformed these pupils’ enthusiasm for education by giving them practical skills and introducing them to careers they had never imagined. Given the importance of inspiring the next generation into agriculture, horticulture and technical careers, will the Leader of the House make time for a debate on the role of specialist colleges, such as Reaseheath, in supporting young people and tackling future skills shortages?
Sir Alan Campbell
Absolutely. I invite the hon. Lady to seek a debate when we return after the summer recess, so that she can make the case for her constituency and for this issue. It is vital that young people learn about where their food comes from. Last Friday, I was at Southridge primary school in my constituency, where outdoor education is transforming the lives of young people: not only are they growing their own food, while the importance of that is explained to them, but they have the opportunity to learn and to play. I thank her for raising this matter.
Adam Thompson (Erewash) (Lab)
In my constituency surgeries and on the doorsteps in Erewash, I keep hearing how my constituents have been experiencing significant delays with the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency, particularly in processing driving licences—very specifically, medical driving licences. At one recent surgery I spoke to Connie Frisby, who had some excellent ideas about how the DVLA service could be modernised and digitised. Will the Leader of the House make time for a debate on the delays at the DVLA and how we might make it better?
Sir Alan Campbell
The DVLA has recruited more staff to the drivers medical casework team and its contact centre to deal with the sustained increase in the volume and complexity of applications, but I understand the frustration of my hon. Friend and his constituents—and of many people across the country, probably. I recommend that he seeks a Westminster Hall debate on this matter when we return in September so that he can make that case and hear from a Minister how the issue will be resolved.
Victoria Collins (Harpenden and Berkhamsted) (LD)
Scores of local people in Northchurch have rallied around a local Sri Lankan family. The father, a social care worker, had his visa renewed, but his wife—a teaching assistant—and three kids were originally given 14 days to leave the country. One 16-year-old was appalled and disgusted, and said:
“As a child of the future, I am disheartened that the Home Office has allowed this to go ahead.”
To add insult to injury to the family, who are living in limbo, the Home Office press office has interfered by essentially stopping a press story and adding uncertainty. Does the Leader of the House agree that this is a completely unacceptable situation? Will he help me to get a substantive response from Ministers and, importantly, to secure this family’s place in their community?
Sir Alan Campbell
I am sure that this causes distress not just to the family, but to the community supporting them. It is important that we get a fair system, but it is also important that we have an effective and efficient system that puts people at the centre. If the hon. Lady gives me details of the case, I will take it up with the Home Office and see if we can get the reassurance that she seeks.
Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab)
I have been approached by many of my constituents, who are concerned about the impact of the operations of a local recycling company. Residents are complaining about dust covering their homes and poor air quality. We should all be able to enjoy our homes in peace. That is why I have taken the appropriate steps of contacting the company, Slough borough council, the Environment Agency and the Government, but sadly the matter persists. Residents feel that their voices are being ignored. Does the Leader of the House agree that this is an entirely unacceptable situation? What can he do through his esteemed office to help my constituents, so that I can ensure that residents are heard?
Sir Alan Campbell
My hon. Friend is absolutely right to raise this matter. The Government have been working hard to improve air quality, and we have provided £582 million to support local authorities. It is very disappointing to hear of the case in his constituency. I hope that the company, Simpson, as well as his local council and the Environment Agency have heard his words, and that they will take action to remedy this issue, because I can give them one guarantee: if they do not, my hon. Friend will continue to raise the issue until they do.
John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con)
Churches are important historical buildings and are often at the heart of our local communities. Labour stopped the last Conservative Government’s VAT scheme, which helped to maintain places of worship across the UK, but the new, more restricted places of worship renewal fund applies only to England. Thanks to Coldingham & St Abbs parish church, it has come to light that the Scottish Government are not passing on extra funds to churches and places of worship in Scotland. Will the Leader of the House encourage his ministerial colleagues to contact the Scottish Government to ensure that this money is passed on to places of worship in Scotland?
Sir Alan Campbell
The new places of worship renewal fund is open for applications, but, as the hon. Gentleman knows, it is an England-only fund administered by Historic England. It is for the Scottish Government to consider whether to set up new arrangements in Scotland, and it is disappointing, to say the least, that they have not done so. I am going to say this again, because it might be the last time that I say it: the Scottish Government have had the biggest settlement since devolution. It is important that they get on and spend it on behalf of constituents, who the settlement was put there for.
Ms Julie Minns (Carlisle) (Lab)
May I invite the Leader of the House to join me in praising the Carlisle band Hardwicke Circus—the only UK band to have toured war-torn Ukraine? Despite its talent being recognised by Sir Paul McCartney, it has previously been suggested to the band that its success will be limited unless it relocates to a large city, like Manchester. Does the Leader of the House agree that success in the music industry should depend on talent, not postcode?
Sir Alan Campbell
I do indeed, and I join my hon. Friend in praising Hardwicke Circus on their success. I agree that the success of any artist should not be determined by postcode. That is why this week we have brought forward our plan for music, detailing our ambition to provide people in every corner of the country with the opportunity to start and build a career in music.
Shockat Adam (Leicester South) (Ind)
I refer Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests: I am a practising optometrist. Children across England are living in a postcode lottery when it comes to vision screening. Only 50% of local authorities provide vision screening in our schools, which means that conditions such as amblyopia—lazy eye—get missed before the age of five. If we miss these conditions, children’s educational abilities and employment opportunities can be reduced. May we have a debate in the Chamber about this cost-efficient, proficient method of screening in all our schools?
Sir Alan Campbell
The hon. Gentleman raises an important matter, behind which is the importance of prevention rather than trying to put things right after they have happened, which is far more costly. There should not be a postcode lottery in this area, or indeed in any other area. I invite the hon. Gentleman to apply for a Westminster Hall debate or an Adjournment debate, so that he can make his case and hear from the relevant Minister how we are going to put this right.
Amanda Martin (Portsmouth North) (Lab)
I regularly hear from people in Portsmouth who are passionate about public service and keen to make a positive difference in their community. Politics should be accessible to everyone, regardless of background. At the end of August, I will be hosting a political summer school for 15 to 21-year-olds in Portsmouth to inspire the next generation of leaders, campaigners and community champions. Can the Leader of the House advise me on how Members across the House can work with the Government to encourage more young people to engage in politics and public service, and what message would he send to the young people taking part in my summer school?
Sir Alan Campbell
My message to the young people taking part in my hon. Friend’s summer school is to enjoy themselves—to enjoy what they might learn, but also to enjoy working together in what is a fantastic field. Taking part in public life is an honour and a privilege, and we should encourage everyone who aspires to public service to be able to follow that ambition.
Charlie Dewhirst (Bridlington and The Wolds) (Con)
Despite the recent successes of two new dental contracts in Bridlington and the decision to postpone the closure of the care unit at the hospital, I am sure the Leader of the House is aware of the challenges of optimising health services in coastal towns, particularly in Bridlington and Hornsea in my constituency. Can we have a debate on this issue in Government time? Can the Minister come to the House and update us on the implementation of the recommendations made by Chris Whitty in 2021 on health inequalities in coastal communities?
Sir Alan Campbell
The hon. Gentleman raises two important matters that are very close to my heart. The first is making sure that people can access dental services wherever they are. The second is coastal communities, which are very important indeed—as he knows, I represent one. Of course, it has been a challenging time for dental services, but the Government are determined to put that right; we are taking action and investing. The hon. Gentleman has referred to the recommendations of the Whitty report; let me go back to the Minister responsible and get the hon. Gentleman an update.
Chris Bloore (Redditch) (Lab)
Care Quality Commission guidelines state that to be a fit and proper person to be a care home director, a person has to be honest, trustworthy, reliable and respectable. Through numerous complaints from my constituents, including court cases, the director of Wayside care home—which serves my constituents—has repeatedly failed those tests, including by charging for services for deceased residents. Will the Leader of the House please make available Government time for us to debate why care home directors and owners found to be in breach of the stringent professional standards expected of people in their roles are able to continue in their positions, looking after the most vulnerable people in our society?
Sir Alan Campbell
My hon. Friend raises a serious matter—care providers must employ fit and proper staff. I understand that the provider he mentions has been placed in special measures to ensure it makes significant improvements. The Care Quality Commission can use its enforcement powers to respond to inadequacies and ensure that action is taken. If it is appropriate in this situation, I hope the commission will use those powers.
Dame Harriett Baldwin (West Worcestershire) (Con)
Could the Leader of the House make a commitment that the new Chancellor of the Exchequer will come to the House on the first day we are back from recess? The current Chancellor has raised taxes on payrolls, and we have fewer payroll jobs; she has raised taxes on businesses, and businesses have closed; and she has raised taxes on non-doms, and millionaires have fled the country. The reality in the world outside is that, with a new Chancellor, we are going to have a whole summer of speculation about other tax rises in the run-up to the Budget. During that period, hiring and investment decisions are going to be put on hold, so I think the Leader of the House can see how important it is that we hear from the new Chancellor at the earliest opportunity.
Sir Alan Campbell
The hon. Lady is assuming that there will be a new Chancellor. As of today, the Chancellor has delivered the highest growth in the G7; I see that the most recent numbers confirm that is happening. We have faced a very challenging situation—one that we inherited and that was made worse by aspects of the international situation—yet inflation has fallen. We have also seen interest rates fall after the dramatic rise following the Truss Budget. I therefore do not agree with the hon. Lady’s analysis. However, she raises an important point. We are looking at a new Administration—the continuation of a Labour Government, but a new Administration—and I would expect that any Secretary of State and the Prime Minister would want to come to this House to set out their view of what will happen going forward.
Pam Cox (Colchester) (Lab)
Endometriosis makes life a misery for many women and girls. Far too many are left waiting for diagnosis and treatment, and often they are left without clear communication on their treatment paths. Colchester hospital is the only specialist centre for endometriosis in our county, but waiting times are long. Will the Leader of the House make time for a debate on improving local services for this debilitating condition?
Sir Alan Campbell
It is unacceptable that women face long waits for the health services they need. We published our renewed women’s health strategy to deliver women’s health priorities. We are committed to ensuring that women can access the services they need, whether that is through their own GP or through a women’s health hub. I encourage my hon. Friend, perhaps on our return, to apply either for a Westminster Hall debate or an Adjournment debate, because I think it would be a popular topic for Members from all parts of the House.
Claire Young (Thornbury and Yate) (LD)
Families in rural communities may spend the next six weeks finding out that the Government’s “kids go free” scheme is not designed for them. In Thornbury and Yate, the Government are funding First Bus, but not the rural local bus companies, so the combined authority has had to foot the bill. I am sure that we are not the only rural community affected. I have written to the Transport Secretary about this, along with more than a dozen other MPs. Will the Leader of the House ensure that we receive an urgent response?
Sir Alan Campbell
I will ensure that the hon. Lady gets a timely response.
Andy MacNae (Rossendale and Darwen) (Lab)
My right hon. Friend the Member for Makerfield (Andy Burnham) has made it clear that reindustrialisation will be a key priority for this Government, but in order to be meaningful this must be done with true ambition, delivering good jobs, hope and opportunity in every part of the country, including the small towns of Rossendale and Darwen. To achieve that, we need to move beyond city-centric economics and the outdated assumption that our future is simply as a service economy. We must recognise that national renewal and resilience come from making more things in more places. Will the Leader of the House agree to a debate in Government time on how we can achieve that?
Sir Alan Campbell
The next Prime Minister has made clear the importance that he attaches to reindustrialisation, particularly in communities that, for a number of reasons, have felt left behind. I am sure that there will be ample time when we return to debate some of these matters, but if my hon. Friend wants to get in quick, a Westminster Hall debate or an Adjournment debate might get him an update from the relevant Minister.
Damian Hinds (East Hampshire) (Con)
In support of the Government’s drive for economic growth and export earnings, may we have a debate in Government time on the role and potential of international inbound tourism? We have a lot of strengths in that sector, but we have lost cost competitiveness, and the introduction of an overnight visitor levy would make that worse.
Sir Alan Campbell
The right hon. Gentleman will appreciate that a new Administration will want to look across some of the commitments that have been made to see whether they want to take them forward. The overseas visitor levy is welcomed by many, but it has caused some concern. I am confident that when we return after the recess he will have an opportunity either to take part in a debate on this matter or to seek such a debate, because we will be discussing it in the autumn.
Kirsteen Sullivan (Bathgate and Linlithgow) (Lab/Co-op)
Last week I was honoured to welcome the families of those who had been onboard the Lisbon Maru, a freighter that was sunk in 1942, claiming the lives of more than 800 allied prisoners of war. We came together with MPs from across this House and the Minister for Scotland, my hon. Friend the Member for Midlothian (Kirsty McNeill), for a memorial photograph and a special screening of the documentary “The Sinking of the Lisbon Maru”. Will the Leader of the House join me in thanking my constituent Gerry Borge and all the members of the Lisbon Maru Memorial Association for ensuring that this tragedy is never forgotten?
Sir Alan Campbell
I join my hon. Friend in paying tribute to Gerry Borge and all the members of the Lisbon Maru Memorial Association for their work in honouring the memory of those affected by this tragedy. It is important that we remember and pay tribute to the more than 800 allied prisoners of war who lost their lives, as well as the extraordinary endurance of those who survived. We must remember that behind every statistic there are families who did not see their loved ones return.
David Mundell (Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale) (Con)
Last summer, the Prime Minister and his family holidayed in my constituency. Now that he has more time on his hands, he would be very welcome back—as are all hon. Members. If the Leader of the House finds himself unexpectedly with some spare time towards the end of the month, may I invite him to join me on the last Friday in July in the muckle toon of Langholm for the common riding, where he will see Cornet Hope presented with the burgh standard and, accompanied by hundreds of riders, ride around the town boundaries, as well as hear the crying of the Langholm fair by Rae Elliot not once but twice on horseback?
Sir Alan Campbell
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his kind invitation—as ever, I will need to check my diary. On a serious point, common ridings are an important tradition, bringing communities together, preserving local history and putting on a spectacular display for visitors. I join him in thanking all the volunteers who make such events a success and in encouraging people to go and see for themselves what happens.
Sonia Kumar (Dudley) (Lab)
GMB union members at Glen Dimplex in my constituency have been on strike for five weeks over proposed workload changes. This week, after showing remarkable grit, they secured a return to the status quo while negotiations continue. Will the Leader of the House provide Government time for a debate on what more can be done to protect workers’ rights from unfair changes to their terms and conditions and ensure that employers negotiate in good faith?
Sir Alan Campbell
My hon. Friend will know that the Government have been instrumental in bringing forward advanced industrial rights for working people; it is therefore sad to learn of what is taking place in her constituency. Should she seek a debate on our return, she could make that case. I hope that the dispute is over by then, but if she wants to hear from the relevant Minister about what further we can do, and perhaps what other measures are needed, she could apply for an Adjournment debate so that she might get that assurance.
Vikki Slade (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (LD)
As the school summer holidays start, most children will be excited about six weeks of lazy days and endless play, but for young carers summer can be more like groundhog day, as children as young as five have to support their family. I pay tribute to those children and to MYTime Young Carers in my constituency, which works to support them, along with Romsey Young Carers and Newcastle Carers, who I met last week at the launch of the “Equity for Young Carers” report, where I shared my Bill—the young carers champion Bill—which would ensure that an individual in schools takes responsibility for their education and potential. As we are expecting the education Bill in the autumn, will the Leader of the House agree to a debate in Government time on how we can better support our young carers and ensure that they get the recognition and support services they need?
Sir Alan Campbell
The hon. Lady raises a really important matter and looks to the legislative route by which we might take for that. I pay tribute to everyone involved with young carers—they do a fantastic and often unrecognised job. If she wants a meeting with an Education Minister to talk about what might happen in the legislative process, I will help her to achieve that.
Euan Stainbank (Falkirk) (Lab)
Many constituents have reported significant delays in requests from the DVLA for medical information. My constituent Graham, for whom it took five months from first contact with the DVLA to resolve his inquiry, reported that the delay has had a significant impact on his mental health due to the loss of independence. Behind each of these statistics is a person, so I add my name to the welcome call made by my hon. Friend the Member for Erewash (Adam Thompson). Will the Leader of the House arrange for a statement after the recess, so that Transport Ministers can hear about DVLA waiting times from hon. Members and update the House on what they are doing to resolve them?
Sir Alan Campbell
It is unacceptable that people face delays due to medical conditions. We recognise that such delays have knock-on consequences. As I said, the DVLA is working hard to reduce delays and has introduced a new casework system that will improve things significantly, but I will take up the matter with the relevant Minister. If, as they monitor progress, a statement is required on our return, I will certainly give that some thought.
Wendy Morton (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con)
Last week I visited Red Industries in my constituency and heard that discarded nitrous oxide canisters are becoming an increasingly common waste stream. Residents and litter pickers feel and see the same, with canisters strewn across parks and incidents of antisocial behaviour. Will the Leader of the House make time for a debate on what further action is needed to tackle nitrous oxide misuse and clean up our communities?
Sir Alan Campbell
It is very much at the forefront of the Government’s thinking that we want not only to clean up local communities, but to put in their hands the powers to do so. If the right hon. Lady seeks a Backbench Business debate or a Westminster Hall debate, I am sure that her concerns about nitrous oxide and other things will be echoed across the House, and she will find others who will want to join her for that debate.
Sarah Hall (Warrington South) (Lab/Co-op)
Year 6 McKellen pupils at St Philip Westbrook primary school in my constituency are campaigning against hostile architecture, such as spikes and divided benches, which makes life harder for people experiencing homelessness. Will the Leader of the House join me in praising their courageous advocacy and make time for a debate on ensuring that our public spaces are designed with dignity and compassion in mind?
Sir Alan Campbell
My hon. Friend raises an important matter. I commend the McKellen pupils at St Philip Westbrook primary school for their thoughtfulness on these matters. We have been working hard to try to find a long-term solution, including through a national plan to end homelessness and the repeal of the outdated Vagrancy Act, but if my hon. Friend wants to hear directly from a Minister, either a Westminster Hall debate or an Adjournment debate would be an appropriate way forward.
Rebecca Paul (Reigate) (Con)
I recently invited residents to vote for their favourite local businesses in my constituency. Will the Leader of the House join me in congratulating MLP Wealth Management in Banstead, which won best overall small business; the Chapel in Reigate, which won best independent café; Murray Designs in Reigate, which won best independent shop; and the Garibaldi pub in Redhill, which won best community-supporting small business? Small businesses throughout Reigate, Redhill, Banstead and the surrounding villages are an important part of what makes our area such a great place to live and work, so may we please have a debate on what more we can do in this place to support them?
Sir Alan Campbell
I join the hon. Lady in congratulating everyone who won an award, and I also congratulate her on not only highlighting this matter but playing such an important role in her constituency in doing so—I pay tribute to her for that. The hon. Lady rightly says that small businesses are the heart of our local communities—that is a constant theme running through Government policy. Should she seek an Adjournment debate and a response from a Minister on what more we can do to support small businesses in her constituency, and indeed others, I am sure that would be appropriate.
Emma Lewell (South Shields) (Lab)
I echo Mr Speaker’s comments at the start of business questions and hope that everyone has a lovely summer.
Reform-led South Tyneside council is planning to close down our publicly run, high-quality STANLEY’s—South Tyneside Accredited Network for Learning in the Early Years—nurseries and daycare, which will affect hundreds of children, their families, and staff. The campaigners’ petition has attracted more than 11,000 signatures. If the seven STANLEY’s centres in South Shields close, the children will have nowhere else to go. Will my right hon. Friend use his good offices to press urgently for tighter controls on councils that ride roughshod over their communities like this?
Sir Alan Campbell
My hon. Friend is a great champion for her fantastic constituency, and she highlights a theme of many of our sessions, which is that Reform offers a great deal in order to get elected and then delivers very little when elected. Perhaps because I am an optimist, I hope that South Tyneside council has heard what she has said and changes its mind. I also hope that the affected residents reflect on that and do everything they can for the campaign because, knowing my hon. Friend very well, I can guarantee that she is not going to give up on this.
Tessa Munt (Wells and Mendip Hills) (LD)
I herald the passage into law of the Public Office (Accountability) Bill, but many will be disappointed that the judge in Tuesday’s High Court hearing had to rule, under current legislation, that the Chinook families were out of time to challenge the Ministry of Defence, which has kept secrets and hidden the truth from them for decades. Will the Leader of the House ask the new Prime Minister and his colleagues to consider how victims of cover-ups might know or discover that they were or are victims of a cover-up, so that they can challenge in good time any Department that is doing the covering up, and to ensure that legislation associated with the Hillsborough Bill guarantees transparency for victims, not just time limits that protect Government Departments?
Sir Alan Campbell
As the hon. Lady suggests, the next Prime Minister was absolutely central to helping to deliver the Public Office (Accountability) Bill. It is crucial that we got that Bill through this place, and I hope it will see the statute book, but, as the hon. Lady has alluded to, that is just the first step. It is often about changing the culture in institutions. I know the next Prime Minister well, and he is not going to give up on this matter either.
Johanna Baxter (Paisley and Renfrewshire South) (Lab)
I wish you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and all colleagues throughout the House a very restful recess.
Can the Leader of the House give us an update on the progress of addressing the backlog of civil service pension scheme cases, particularly those affected by the McCloud judgment? I am extremely concerned that one of my constituents has been retired for two years now and has still to receive their pension scheme benefits.
Sir Alan Campbell
The service provided by Capita has been, quite frankly, dreadful. Too many pension scheme members still face unacceptable delays after years of dedicated public service. After this matter was raised in the House on several occasions, the Minister for the Cabinet Office provided an update on the action we are taking. If my hon. Friend provides me with the details of individual cases, I will see whether we can raise them with the relevant Departments and get a resolution. I am sure the Cabinet Office will want to keep the matter under review and, when we return in September, not only update the House on the progress made but give assurances about the future.
Robbie Moore (Keighley and Ilkley) (Con)
Will the Leader of the House join me in thanking West Yorkshire fire and rescue for its continued efforts to tackle the wildfire that is currently on Silsden moor? At the height of the incident, 12 fire engines were in attendance. As the risk of wildfires on moorlands increases, may we have a debate in Government time about the Government’s decision to ignore the advice from the National Fire Chiefs Council, scientists and conservationists and to ban the controlled rotational burning of heather, which is resulting in more uncontrolled wildfires, peat degradation and severe impacts on biodiversity?
Sir Alan Campbell
I certainly join the hon. Gentleman in paying tribute to West Yorkshire fire and rescue service. I fear its services will be called on more in future as climate change has further effect. I will take away and raise with Ministers the hon. Gentleman’s particular points, but let me be clear: we have invested around £100 million for the biggest upgrade of national resilience capabilities in nearly 20 years, to combat the escalating threat of wildfires. We have also made available around £2 billion for fire and rescue authorities in England. It is obviously of concern to the hon. Gentleman’s local communities, though; let us see what more we can do.
Dr Allison Gardner (Stoke-on-Trent South) (Lab)
Lightwood in my constituency is earmarked in the emerging local plan for a whopping 3,000 new homes. Not only would a development of that size be simply too much for the area, but no masterplan has been brought forward to guide development. Without a proper masterplan, there is a risk of piecemeal development, and my constituents cannot be reassured that there will be the transport, schools, healthcare, protected green spaces and updated water infrastructure that their communities need. Will the Leader of the House make Government time available for a debate on the importance of requiring masterplans for large-scale developments?
Sir Alan Campbell
My hon. Friend knows that the Government are committed to building 1.5 million new homes to fix our housing crisis and ensure that everyone has a safe, secure and affordable place to live, but she is absolutely right that infrastructure needs to be built alongside those new homes. Our planning frameworks are clear that large-scale development should be sustainable and infrastructure-led. I encourage my hon. Friend to ask for either a Westminster Hall debate or an Adjournment debate when we return, so that she can hear directly from a Minister how the situation can be resolved.
Matt Vickers (Stockton West) (Con)
Over recent years, the people of Stockton have seen investment in the local health service, with a new diagnostic centre, a new mental health hub and new state-of-the-art robotics. But North Tees hospital is reaching the end of its life. The outstanding staff who work there deserve a first-class place to work, but instead of a new hospital, all they have had from this Government is 600 job losses. Will the Leader of the House grant a debate on the urgent need for a new North Tees hospital?
Sir Alan Campbell
First, I congratulate the hon. Gentleman—I am sure many of us envy him—on Stockton making the shortlist for town of culture, which is a great tribute to the work taking place there. The Government are of course committed to doing everything they can to address the crisis in the NHS, not least in respect of infrastructure. This Government are different from the last Government, in the sense that we are not just committed to bringing forward plans, albeit I understand the urgency; we are actually going to provide the money for those plans. That was the bit that was missing.
Samantha Niblett (South Derbyshire) (Lab)
I want to put on record my thanks to the Prime Minister, not only for turning the Labour party around and getting us elected, but for helping me to be elected as the Member for South Derbyshire so that I can represent constituents of mine such as Abbey Wright, whom I met this week to talk about her beloved dad. Phil Wright died by suicide in April this year at the age of 62, leaving a family devastated by his loss. Abbey and I discussed how I can support her and others who face the loss of a loved one following suicide.
Abbey told me of her family’s struggle to get help for her dad, who was so ill that he could not leave the house. Doctor’s appointments were offered, but they were by phone, and there were suggestions that he could attend a mental health café. As Phil could not leave the house, this approach was never going to work for him. Will the Leader of the House join me in calling on the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care to make home visits mandatory in cases like Phil’s? People are sometimes so ill that all other options will not work and a face-to-face assessment is the only option to help prevent crisis points and painful losses of life.
Sir Alan Campbell
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for raising this matter, and send condolences to Phil Wright’s family following this tragic case. We are investing £3.6 million in suicide prevention as part of England’s first ever men’s health strategy. Both crisis and community mental health teams should be able to visit patients in their home, and it is sad to hear that that did not happen in this heartbreaking case. The NHS is improving, but I acknowledge that more needs to be done. I know that is of little comfort to my hon. Friend’s constituents. I will raise this issue with the relevant Minister and ask them to write to her about it.
Ayoub Khan (Birmingham Perry Barr) (Ind)
Thanks to the outsourcing of interpreter and translation services to private providers, qualified interpreters and translators are being exploited through lower pay and are often substituted by those providing substandard services. We have already seen the West Midlands police rely on Cintra for such services—to the detriment of the force, interpreters and my constituents—and NHS Birmingham and Solihull is now on the verge of doing the same through Word360. Will the Leader of the House consider setting some time aside to discuss these predatory practices?
Sir Alan Campbell
These are concerning matters, and the hon. Gentleman is right to raise them. I suggest that he seek either a Westminster Hall debate or an Adjournment debate when we return, so that he can go into further detail on an issue that I am sure is causing distress to some of his constituents.
Helena Dollimore (Hastings and Rye) (Lab/Co-op)
Our roads in Hastings, Rye and the surrounding villages are riddled with potholes, and it is one of the biggest issues we face. One of the most frustrating things is that on the rare occasion that a pothole gets filled, all the other potholes around it are left untouched. That is why I wrote to the new leader of the Reform-led East Sussex county council on 21 May to urge him to take decisive action on this issue by reviewing the contract with Balfour Beatty and changing the intervention criteria. Two months later, and despite my writing repeatedly to him about this issue, he has not responded to any of my questions about potholes. Does the Leader of the House agree that this shows that Reform is not interested in fixing the issues that local people care about, even when it gets record money from this Labour Government to do so?
Sir Alan Campbell
I thank my hon. Friend for raising this matter, because I know it is of interest to other Members who represent areas that have a Reform administration. The Government are providing councils with a record £7.3 billion over the next four years for local road maintenance. This is not the first time she has raised the underperformance of the Reform-led East Sussex county council in this House. As I have said before, Reform is very good at offering to do a great deal in order to get elected, and then it delivers much less service to residents. I hope that Reform councillors have listened to her contribution today, that they take their job seriously and that they get on with the work that is necessary. The lack of communication from the leader of her council is disrespectful to Members of Parliament, and I hope that he has heard my hon. Friend today.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Leader of the House for all his answers to our questions and wish him well for the summer. I look forward to returning in September.
Can we have a statement from the Foreign Secretary on the continuing discrimination faced by the Baha’i community in Egypt? The Egyptian authorities continue to refuse to recognise Baha’i marriages, leaving Baha’i children without legal status and denying them access to citizenship rights, residency and, in some cases, education. Will the Leader of the House make time for a statement so that the Government can set out the representations that they are making to the Egyptian authorities on upholding freedom of religious belief and the fundamental rights of the Baha’i community?
Sir Alan Campbell
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his consistent attendance at these sessions, for raising these very important matters and for the tone in which he raises them. He should be commended for that, and he asks a serious question. The UK strongly condemns the persecution of Baha’i communities in many countries around the world. We continue to raise concerns about freedom of religion and belief with the Egyptian authorities, and I will ensure that he gets a response from the relevant Foreign Office Minister.
Rachel Taylor (North Warwickshire and Bedworth) (Lab)
I joined the Old Meeting church in the centre of Bedworth earlier this summer to celebrate the 300th anniversary of its wonderful building. The church provides a friendly warm space every Friday where everyone can get a great lunch and a good cuppa for a reasonable price, and a repair café every month where people can bring treasured items back to life. Will the Leader of the House join me in thanking Linda and the other volunteers for the wonderful work that they do for our community?
Sir Alan Campbell
I certainly will. My hon. Friend makes a point about the fantastic work that churches and church communities do, which I am sure is echoed around the Chamber. They are absolutely central to our wider communities. I thank Linda and everybody else involved, and I wish them well for the future.
Paul Waugh (Rochdale) (Lab/Co-op)
Fireworks play a spectacular and important role in many of our public and private celebrations, but all too often the antisocial and year-round use of loud fireworks causes deep distress to pets, veterans and elderly people in Rochdale, as well as posing a severe wildfire risk on our moorlands. Does the Leader of the House agree that today’s Government proposals to restrict the sale of loud fireworks will finally put an end to this misery for many of our constituents?
Sir Alan Campbell
Yes, I do. My hon. Friend is absolutely right to mention the particular risks of loud fireworks and, as was raised earlier, the risk of wildfires. As he suggests, we have published a written statement today that announces the launch of a consultation on fireworks legislation. This issue has been raised with me repeatedly, and I know that Members will want to take the opportunity to ensure that the voices of their constituents are heard.
Local Government Reorganisation
(3 weeks, 6 days ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Steve Reed)
This Government are driving the most ambitious programme of local government reform in a generation by replacing the inefficient two-tier system with new unitary councils so that all parts of our country are ready for devolution. We need to devolve power out of Whitehall so that we can rebalance wealth, power and opportunity right across the country. This is the second richest country in Europe, yet England has seven of the 10 poorest regions in northern Europe. That is the case for change.
Devolution requires strong local councils that deliver good public services and support economic growth, and which are closely connected to the communities they serve. Two-tier structures are confusing for residents, divide responsibilities, slow down decisions, duplicate costs and blur accountability. In many areas, existing boundaries no longer match patterns of local economies, public services or local identities. We cannot continue with an outdated and misaligned system that does not serve local people well. We can do better.
Today I am announcing further decisions on local government reorganisation in the remaining areas of the programme. Subject to parliamentary approval, I have decided to implement proposals for new councils in the following areas. In some of these areas, modification powers will be used to make the boundary changes requested alongside proposals.
The specifics are in the accompanying written statement, and for ease I will refer to the proposals in the following shortened form: in Derbyshire and Derby, the two-unitary option put forward by Chesterfield, Derby, Erewash and High Peak, including boundary changes; in Devon, Plymouth and Torbay, the four-unitary proposal put forward by Exeter and Plymouth, including boundary changes; in East Sussex and Brighton and Hove, the two-unitary proposal, including the boundary changes requested by Brighton and Hove city council, except for the parish of Falmer; the one-unitary proposal in Gloucestershire; the four-unitary proposal in Hertfordshire, including boundary changes, except for the ward of Arbury; in Kent and Medway, the four-unitary proposal put forward by Dover, Swale and Thanet; in Lancashire, Blackpool and Blackburn with Darwen, the four-unitary proposal put forward by Chorley, Lancaster, Preston, Ribble Valley, South Ribble and West Lancashire; in Leicestershire, Leicester and Rutland, a two-unitary option put forward by Leicester city council, including boundary changes; in Lincolnshire, North Lincolnshire and North East Lincolnshire, the four-unitary proposal put forward by Lincoln city council, including boundary changes, but leaving North Lincolnshire and North East Lincolnshire unchanged; in Nottinghamshire and Nottingham, a two-unitary option put forward by Nottingham city council, including boundary changes; the three-unitary proposal in Oxfordshire, including boundary changes; in Staffordshire and Stoke-on-Trent, the two-unitary proposal put forward by East Staffordshire, Stafford and Cannock Chase, but also by Stoke-on-Trent; the two-unitary proposal in Warwickshire; and the two unitary proposal in Worcestershire. On Cambridgeshire and Peterborough and West Sussex, I am not making announcements today, because further time is required to get the decisions right.
Everyone involved wants to see stronger local councils delivering better local services that will improve the lives of the people we serve. The decisions announced today will do that, and improve local government for more than 15 million people. We will see 38 councils operating across these areas in place of the current 134. That will result in more than 250 fewer senior posts, significant salary savings and nearly 3,000 fewer councillors, which could save up to £20 million per year on councillor allowances alone across these areas. Councils themselves projected that the decisions could lead to net savings of about £1 billion by the end of 2032-33 when the anticipated benefits are fully realised. Those savings will be reinvested in the frontline services that local people care about the most. Across England, once all decisions are taken, we will have cut the number of councils from 317 to a maximum of 173. That will simplify and strengthen local government serving over 20 million people.
Reorganisation will also support city growth. For example, Plymouth is a nationally significant defence growth location and a house building priority, driven by investment at Devonport. Leicester is a major urban economy facing cross-boundary housing, employment and infrastructure pressures, including unmet housing need. Our decisions today will help those two cities grow, along with others, including Preston, Derby, Nottingham, Exeter, Oxford, Brighton and Hove, and Lincoln. These bigger cities will be crucial in ensuring that our country can build the homes we need.
I am tremendously grateful for all the hard work that councils put in to their proposals, but I appreciate that some Members of this House and some councils will disagree with my decisions. I am sure we can all agree that the hard work of transition to new councils must continue to be a shared endeavour across local and central Government. To protect the services that some of the most vulnerable people in our communities rely on, we all need to get that right.
A broad support offer is in place for councils, including support to councils through our sector advisers and through funding to the Local Government Association. We have already announced £63 million in capacity funding to support the reorganisation process. I am pleased to provide further detail today on how this funding will be allocated. Each area will receive an unprecedented £900,000 per new unitary council in capacity funding. On top of that, we are committing up to £150,000 in supplementary funding, as part of a wider package of support for children’s services, adult social care and public health leadership. Taken together, for every reorganisation area, there will be over £1 million in capacity funding for each new unitary council. This is the first time that reorganisation has been supported in this way, and it shows this Government’s commitment to supporting councils to ensure that we get these reforms right.
The programme will now move forward in line with the timetable already set out, with elections to the new unitary councils scheduled for May 2027, ahead of new councils taking up their powers in April 2028. Today marks a significant milestone for the future of local government, with decisions now taken on 19 out of 21 two-tier areas across England. Reorganising local government is not a debate about where to draw lines on a map or about structures and systems; it is about making real improvements to people’s lives and to the communities they are a part of. This reform programme is ambitious, but it is the right thing to do. I commend this statement to the House.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
I call the shadow Secretary of State.
Sir James Cleverly (Braintree) (Con)
I thank the Secretary of State for advance sight of his statement.
This is blatant—blatant. These changes, like so many of the Secretary of State’s decisions, have been driven by party politics. He tried to cancel local elections, and he was caught trying to tip the balance in Labour’s favour, but nothing in today’s statement has done anything to dispel the belief that this is purely partisan. Many communities have been left in limbo, while Labour councils have been allowed to redraw the map on which the future elections in which they will be engaged will be fought. Can he honestly say that that will inspire confidence in the integrity of the process?
If the Secretary of State wanted accusations of gerrymandering to be put aside, why on earth did he create such a clearly gerrymandered set of boundaries? The maps speak for themselves. In Devon, he has accepted the proposals put forward by Labour-run Exeter and Plymouth. In Leicester, he has accepted the submissions by a Labour-controlled council. In Nottingham, he has accepted the proposal put forward by the Labour-run city council. I could go on and on, but time does not permit. How on earth can the Secretary of State expect anyone to believe that the process has been politically impartial?
Devolution should be about transferring powers away from Whitehall. It is about giving freedom to succeed to local areas, and for them to keep the reward of that success, creating the conditions for more investment, more jobs and more opportunity, but none of that is dependent on imposing a single organisational model from Whitehall. Unitaries should never be the admission price for a devolution deal, nor should local areas be compelled into so-called strategic authorities simply because the Secretary of State and Whitehall prefer organisational uniformity. Devolution should mean trusting local people to make local decisions.
The Secretary of State says that he is holding councils to the standards of best value, transparency, consultation, good governance and sound decision making, yet by the very same standards he fails his own test, with minimal consultation, partisan judgments and arbitrary decision making. He speaks about stronger councils, yet some of these new authorities will be burdened with crippling debt from the day they are created. In Nottinghamshire, Conservative-run Rushcliffe council is a well-run, financially secure council, yet under his plans it will be carved up with most of its assets transferred to debt-ridden Labour Nottingham city council. How on earth can weakening well-managed councils to prop up bankrupt ones create a stronger foundation for local government?
What of local democracy? The Secretary of State talks with great pride about how many local representatives will be culled in these proposals, but that means decisions taken further away from the communities they affect and planning powers becoming increasingly removed from the very people who have to live with the implications of those decisions.
The Secretary of State complains about two-tier local government, but his own mayoral proposals create two tiers of local government. So please can he inform the House: is two-tier local government good or is two-tier local government bad? He does not seem to know.
What assessment has the Secretary of State made of the democratic deficit? Given the pace at which he is driving the changes, and the fact that a number of the proposals have still not been outlined and will not be until the autumn, what on earth gives him the confidence that they will be implemented in time for shadow elections in May next year? What assessment has he made of the likelihood of judicial reviews further delaying the timetable before 2029?
The statement raises more questions than it answers. If this proves to be the Secretary of State’s final appearance at the Dispatch Box in this role—[Hon. Members: “Hear, hear!”] Although we do not agree, I have enjoyed working with him across the Dispatch Box; but I hope he recognises the mess that he is leaving behind. He cannot believe that he has squandered this opportunity for genuine devolution. Instead, his legacy will be one of taking power away from local communities, imposing an unfair funding review on councils and gerrymandering local government boundaries. I find it difficult to believe that that is a record he will genuinely be proud of.
Steve Reed
I have also enjoyed working with the right hon. Gentleman, who is, unfortunately, a very effective shadow Secretary of State. I hope that our relationship can continue in this manner for a long time into the future. Unfortunately, the facts do not support the claims he is making. The majority of proposals I have outlined as decisions have cross-party support. I accept that reasonable people may agree or disagree with the decisions, but the important thing for residents is that we move ahead to realise the savings and to secure economic growth, because those things will benefit local people.
The right hon. Gentleman talks about debt. Of course, when the Conservative party was running Woking council, it racked up billions of pounds. The Government have had to intervene and write that off because of the severity of that debt. In fact, councils across the country will realise savings of up to £1 billion—that is the councils’ own estimate—that they can then invest in frontline services. That is to the benefit of local people.
The right hon. Gentleman will know that I cannot comment on judicial reviews, but I reassure him and the House that this programme will go ahead, on schedule.
Gareth Snell (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab/Co-op)
I am broadly sympathetic and supportive of the proposals for Staffordshire, as the only MP in Staffordshire already in a single unitary authority, but may I ask the Secretary of State why he did not use the opportunity to make some of the very small consequential changes to the southern boundary of places such as Stoke-on-Trent, where development has spilled into the neighbouring boroughs but has absolutely no connection with the borough and the council it will now be? Did anyone from his Department physically visit those places to see where he is now creating borders? On council tax harmonisation, my constituents pay the lowest council tax in the county. Is it expected that everybody else will be harmonised to their level—a council tax reduction—or will my constituents see a council tax increase in order to give a council tax cut to some of the wealthiest in the county?
Steve Reed
I have visited my hon. Friend’s constituency with him on several occasions and I recognise the work he does to champion his local communities, including through the process we are currently engaged in. Council tax will be a matter for the council to set for itself, within the parameters permitted, and it will take those decisions in due course. The particular split in the case of Staffordshire was proposed and selected to minimise service disruption by aligning with delivery, commuting, patient flows and partnership. The proposal we have adopted will be very strong on financial sustainability and resilience. That will benefit the stability of services, but it should also benefit council tax levels further down the line.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
Olly Glover (Didcot and Wantage) (LD)
I thank the Secretary of State for advance sight of his statement. I recognise that a lot of work has gone into the proposals by a lot of people, but many of the details add to an existing impression of chaos. We are finally getting sight of the detail just 9.5 months before many affected areas have elections. Councils have been forced into putting time and resources into coming up with proposals, many of which have been ignored. Councillors and officers have been uncertain about their future for the nearly two years it has taken to get to this point. Many communities will feel done to, not done with.
The lack of notice and opportunity to scrutinise the Department’s decisions is also a huge concern. The Secretary of State’s suggestion that local identities are being considered will come as a huge surprise to my constituents in Culham and Clifton Hampden, which, although many miles from Oxford city centre and surrounded by countryside, will be incorporated into Greater Oxford. Many communities and council wards in Oxfordshire will also now be arbitrarily divided between the new unitary councils. Colleagues in Devon worry that rural communities have been ignored at the expense of new unitaries designed to benefit the needs of cities.
There were endless changes of mind about Sussex elections and boundaries, and now, the fact that a decision has not been made about West Sussex has been met with disbelief. The Government promised to work in partnership with local authorities and rebuild the trust that was shattered over the past decade. What assessment has the Secretary of State made of the long- term financial viability of the proposed unitary structures, given that several of the councils being merged risk being financially unviable?
Steve Reed
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his questions. Long-term financial viability is one of the main reasons why the process is taking place. It was one of the key criteria on which the final decisions have been taken. He will find the details in the written ministerial statement.
Of course it is necessary to consult, and of course that means that areas will put forward proposals. Today, the Government are responding to those proposals. In the cases of Oxford and Devon, and in the other cases he has referred to, the selected option was chosen because it is the best for economic growth. Right at the start of my statement, I pointed out that despite us having the second-richest economy in Europe, we have seven of the 10 poorest regions in northern Europe. We cannot allow that to continue. We need economic growth. That is how we put more money in people’s pockets, and that is what this Government are focused on.
In the case of West Sussex, where we had a re-consultation, we have received an awful lot of additional information, and I think it is only right to consider that information carefully before coming to a final decision. We owe that respect to the parties, councils and residents’ groups that took the trouble to provide responses.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
Before I come to Back Benchers, let me say that, as Members will be aware, a lot of you wish to get in. It would be very helpful if questions were succinct.
Michael Payne (Gedling) (Lab)
The Secretary of State and I have known each other a long time—we served in local government together—and he knows that I am as passionate as he is about bringing power back closer to people, but I have to say to him, in all honesty, that the decision to split my home community of Gedling borough in half and force communities in Gedling into an expanded new Nottingham city council area against their will is bad for my constituents and bad policymaking. I have to tell the Secretary of State that this is a decision that I cannot and will not support.
Will the Secretary of State tell me what on earth makes sense about creating two councils for Nottingham and Nottinghamshire, when official figures show that from day one, one of them will be £147 million better off than the other? Will he explain to my constituents why the Government have backed the option that did not adhere to the strict criteria set out by the Government at the start of this process? Finally—thank you for your forbearance, Madam Deputy Speaker—given his announcement that he will hold off on making a decision on Cambridgeshire and Peterborough, will he re-think on Nottingham and Nottinghamshire, and hold off on making a decision until an agreement can be made in my part of the world?
Steve Reed
First of all, I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for the way he always champions and represents the views and interests of his constituents. We have indeed known each other for a very long time, and I always appreciate his views, even when we disagree. I will, of course, be happy to ensure that he has a meeting with me or a relevant Minister to discuss his concerns, but the decision we have taken on Nottingham and Nottinghamshire was made because it offers the strongest economic geography, and allows economic growth to happen at pace. That will benefit everyone living in Nottinghamshire. We really must take decisions that will tackle the wide economic divides that are pulling this country apart. Everyone everywhere in this country deserves the chance to get on, and that means bringing investment and good jobs to every single part of this country. This is what this proposal is intended to achieve.
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
One of the poorest wards in the entire country is Gainsborough south-west ward. Why is the Secretary of State splitting West Lindsey in half? Why is he taking Scampton away from Gainsborough? It makes no sense. Why is he cutting away the nuclear fusion site from Lincoln? Why is he loading debt on Lincoln city council—for example, for the Hykeham bypass? There is no logic in this, other than it being a stitch-up by Lincoln Labour party. This is the only Labour-controlled council in Lincolnshire. Everybody else has been treated with complete contempt.
Steve Reed
The right hon. Gentleman is a doughty champion of his constituents, as we just saw. The Government have published criteria against which the proposals have been judged, and the decisions are being taken. The decision for Lincolnshire give Lincoln the space to grow; it allows economic and housing growth, which will benefit people right across the council, and will strike the best balance on service delivery, reflecting both urban and rural needs across the county. That is why we have taken the decision.
Adam Jogee (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Lab)
The announcement today and the proposals in it are completely unacceptable. I reject them in the strongest terms—[Interruption.] Don’t heckle me. I have been saying this all along, so let me finish; I speak for my constituents. There is nothing in the proposals that reflects the views that I have consistently put to Ministers, or any acknowledgment of the concerns I have heard from thousands of people in Newcastle-under-Lyme.
How does the Secretary of State think we can protect the people of Newcastle-under-Lyme from the debt held by Staffordshire county council, Staffordshire Moorlands district council and Stoke-on-Trent city council? Why should any of my constituents have faith in the proposals, which they do not want? It is utterly unacceptable and a disgrace that the statement has been put to the House on the final day of term, four days before a new Prime Minister takes office. It is not too late to stop and think again. The Secretary of State said a minute ago that he was going to pause to get other proposals right, and I urge him to do the same on this one.
Steve Reed
It is important that we get the process moving, because we will not realise the benefits of economic growth, job opportunities and money in people’s pockets if we keep delaying it. We need to get it completed in this Parliament and get areas ready for the mayoral devolution that will follow. I am happy to meet my hon. Friend, and support him in ensuring that his constituents will benefit from the changes. I know from earlier conversations that he is keen to ensure that we maintain the unique heritage and identity of those communities, and I will support him in doing that.
Andrew Griffith (Arundel and South Downs) (Con)
I welcome the moratorium on, and potential saving of, West Sussex, in response to my opposition and that of thousands of residents who did not want our historic county cleaved in two. Now that he has acknowledged that the proposal from the Government was less sustainable than the status quo, will the Secretary of State remove the jeopardy and confirm that he will not be proceeding with the proposal, and will instead save West Sussex?
Steve Reed
West Sussex will benefit from eventual local government reorganisation, just as other areas will, because of the savings from two-tier duplication, which we can plough straight into the frontline services that matter to the hon. Gentleman’s constituents and residents across the county. As I said to the hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage (Olly Glover), there was a re-consultation, and we have had a vast amount of information coming in. I did not want to push ahead with a decision before we had considered all the views that were shared. We will look to proceed and announce as soon as we can after the summer recess. The intention is that the timetable for elections will remain the same.
Sarah Smith (Hyndburn) (Lab)
The Secretary of State mentioned in his statement that part of the driver of the proposals is that he wants to do something about areas of high deprivation. However, the plans presented today would make East Lancashire one of the most deprived unitary authorities in the country. What will the Government do to support areas like East Lancashire, if these plans are pursued, to ensure that we do not become a place of incredibly high deprivation, and that we are an area that benefits from economic growth?
Steve Reed
I have long recognised that my hon. Friend is a strong champion of the communities that she represents, and I am grateful to her for raising those points. We had a number of proposals for Lancashire, which were assessed against the criteria. The option we selected was chosen because it aligns with economic areas, commuting patterns and transport links, which will support inward investment, skills development and jobs, and therefore put money in the pockets of residents across her splendid county.
Max Wilkinson (Cheltenham) (LD)
The proposals are not the result that I wanted for my constituency or Gloucestershire. However, I am a reasonable man, and I am willing to take the Secretary of State at his word. Will he reassure me that the new Gloucestershire unitary will not end up coming to the Government with a begging bowl on day one, because the Government are not giving it enough money, including to fill the potholes that I am told about every day by my constituents? To prevent that, will he designate the Golden Valley in west Cheltenham an area for retained council tax? That would help Gloucestershire to become more financially sustainable by allowing us, as the incoming Prime Minister would say, to keep the proceeds of growth that we are creating in our area.
Steve Reed
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his support in principle for the changes that we are making. The option we selected for Gloucestershire was chosen in part because it was the strongest financial case, for precisely the reasons that he has just outlined. There will be savings from eliminating duplication, which will be ploughed back into the frontline services that he cares about, and that are the most important consideration for his constituents.
Dr Lauren Sullivan (Gravesham) (Lab)
I thank the Minister for his statement. In Gravesham, we mostly advocated for option 5A and against options 1A and 4D. I welcome the decision to pursue 4B, as it is clear that the Government have listened to the calls for smaller communities that are local to councillors, and that keep local identity while having room for growth and jobs. One concern remains about the debt for Kent and Medway councils. Thanks to a Labour council, Gravesham is financially sound; how can the Government ensure that the new authority will continue to be like Gravesham?
Steve Reed
My hon. Friend is right that her council has achieved something remarkable in stabilising its finances, and therefore the foundation of its public services, so well. The option we selected for Kent is intended to support economic growth, which will benefit my hon. Friend’s residents and the financial stability that she is keen to see continue. That is how we can ensure good-value and secure public services for her constituents and others across the county of Kent.
Mark Garnier (Wyre Forest) (Con)
I can see the sense in what the Secretary of State is trying to achieve with this reorganisation, and the target of 500,000 people per unitary authority makes a lot of sense—it brings a lot of people together. But why, after Wyre Forest district council voted for the single unitary, did the Secretary of State deliver a two-unitary solution for Worcestershire? North Worcestershire, where Wyre Forest is, will consist of 293,000 people. We are now splitting up adult social care, children’s services, highways, education and refuse disposal. It does not make financial sense. Will the Secretary of State reconsider what is being proposed for Worcestershire, and go with a single unitary authority?
Steve Reed
It is of course important that the critical services that the hon. Gentleman referred to are protected and become stronger through reorganisation. It is because we will be able to secure savings, and invest them back in frontline services, that I believe reorganisation will benefit his constituents. The area size was a target, not a threshold. There were other factors in the published criteria that weighed on my mind as we took those decisions, including economic growth, potential for housing—given that we face a housing crisis in this country —and people’s local identity.
Oliver Ryan (Burnley) (Lab/Co-op)
Unitary authorities have big benefits, but I am angry about the proposals. According to our own statistics, the new East Lancs authority—with Blackburn, and without the Ribble Valley—will create the most deprived unitary authority in the country, with an awful lot of debt already on its books. We are going to need a lot of cash to make it work, and I cannot support it. Burnley, Padiham and Brierfield will not stand for being part of Greater Blackburn. The headquarters of the new authority must not be in Blackburn, and the accountable officer must not be a Blackburner. Our people, bondholders, culture, businesses and communities cannot be steamrolled and forgotten in this way, much though I like the hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr Hussain). Does the Secretary of State agree?
Steve Reed
I thank my hon. Friend for his question and always championing the interests of his residents. I would remind him that through fair funding, we have realigned Government funding for local authorities with deprivation and need, which will ensure that funding is distributed fairly in a way that it was not during the 14 years of the previous Government. The decisions for Lancashire were taken in part because of the strong alignment with economic areas, commuting patterns and transport links, because that is the way we can attract inward investment to bring the jobs that will put money in the pockets of his constituents and other people across the county of Lancashire.
Neil O’Brien (Harborough, Oadby and Wigston) (Con)
Eleven thousand people in Oadby, Wigston and Great Glen recently voted in a referendum against joining the city of Leicester. Ministers know that people do not want this locally, and yet they are forcing it on them anyway. People in the rest of Harborough are losing their local council, to be replaced by a giant, remote, doughnut-shaped council for the whole county. Ministers are doing this on their last day in office. They think they know best, and have the arrogance to inflict this on a community they know nothing about. I want to know whether the Minister will publish all the advice and correspondence he had before making this decision so that we can see that the only person he has listened to is the Labour Mayor of Leicester, and the rest of us can just get stuffed.
Steve Reed
I would remind the hon. Gentleman that the vast majority of these proposals have cross-party support. We have taken the decisions about Leicestershire, as in other cases, because they are the best way to secure the economic growth that the area needs and deserves, so that we can put money in people’s pockets, eliminate duplication and invest the savings in frontline services. We are interested in protecting the services his residents rely on, even if he is not.
Helena Dollimore (Hastings and Rye) (Lab/Co-op)
Reorganisation makes sense. The situation that we have now, with services split across a borough or district council and a county council, causes many issues. If a drain is blocked by leaves that are on top of the drain, it is one council; if the leaves are below the drain, it is another. We had a big fire last week, and the responsibilities were again split between two councils. As the Secretary of State knows from our conversations, it is vital that the voices of the coastal community that I represent are not overridden in this process. Can he assure me that we in Hastings and Rye will retain powers to summon certain people who deliver services, be that the academy trusts, the cabinet members for social care or for potholes, or the integrated care board? We need those powers, because right now we do not have them. Can he give me an assurance that Hastings and Rye will be at the front of the queue for those new powers?
Steve Reed
I have visited my hon. Friend’s constituency with her on many occasions, so I know at first hand that she is one of the strongest advocates for her constituents of any Member in the House. She makes an important point there, because we do not want to lose the voice of individual towns such as Hastings and Rye within unitarisation. The English Devolution and Community Empowerment Act 2026 allows for what are referred to in the legislation as “area committees” but which could sit as town committees, operating as a scrutiny function, to call in the providers of public services and hold them to account within the locality that makes sense to local people.
Lewis Cocking (Broxbourne) (Con)
What would the Secretary of State say to my constituents in Broxbourne, who never asked for this reorganisation and are concerned that it is just a waste of time and money that will leave them with higher council tax bills and less say over local planning decisions?
Steve Reed
I would say to the constituents of the hon. Gentleman, with whom I have conversations quite often—not least on the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee, of which he is a distinguished member—that the selections for the county were made because they best reflect the distinct economic areas that operate across the county, because they will keep services closer to residents by organising around where people live, work and travel, and because they will make the best set of proposals for attracting further inward investment into the county, which will, I am sure, benefit his constituents, as well as others across the county.
Jo White (Bassetlaw) (Lab)
I refer the House to my entry on the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I have grave concerns about the Nottingham and Nottinghamshire proposal, under which there will be an extreme deficit of a predicted nearly £150 million. Most of our areas, because of the demographics in our post-coalfield communities, are band A with high social care needs. I cannot see how this proposal will cover those costs. The Secretary of State has talked about a rebalance; I perceive it as an imbalance. A city solution will sacrifice my communities, who are an hour away from Nottingham, and will not solve the problems that left-behind communities have experienced for far too long. I ask the Minister to meet as soon as possible the six Labour MPs who have expressed severe concerns about this proposal.
Steve Reed
I thank my hon. Friend for her question and for sharing her views with me in advance of this statement. Of course, I would be more than happy to ensure that the meeting she has requested goes ahead, and that she and other colleagues in the county are able to express their views directly to a Minister. I would just like to put on the record that the proposal that we accepted for Nottingham and Nottinghamshire was the most financially stable option and the best for economic growth and jobs in the area, and the option that best supports mayoral authority growth ambitions within the county. All of that will, I hope, benefit her residents and others living across the county.
Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
What a poisoned chalice this Secretary of State is leaving for the incoming Prime Minister. I have a very specific question to put to him. A report published in The Times —online on 18 June, and in the paper the following day—stated categorically that this Secretary of State had overruled senior civil servants and lawyers from three different Departments in order to make decisions that were favoured politically by Labour council leaders. Was that report correct or was it false?
Steve Reed
I would just remind the right hon. Gentleman, as I have said several times already today, that the vast majority of the proposals that we have accepted have cross-party support. As much as the Opposition might like to pretend that this is being done in the interests of only one party—I would suggest that the right hon. Gentleman listens to some of the criticisms from the Labour Benches, too, if he thinks that is true—it is not the case. Many of the proposals were not only supported by Conservatives, but put forward by Conservatives.
Chris Bloore (Redditch) (Lab)
I thank the Minister for his statement and for delivering the option supported by five out of seven councils in Worcestershire, including the Conservative leaders of Wychavon, Bromsgrove and my council, Redditch borough council. I am hopeful that the decision to create North and South Worcestershire unitaries will mean those two distinct communities will now be able to deliver more tailored local services and, in Redditch’s case, actually deliver a fit-for-purpose economic development plan, which we have not had for 20 years. This will not be an easy time for staff in those seven affected councils. Can the Minister assure me that the Government will provide the money and support needed to make this transition a success?
Steve Reed
My hon. Friend is quite right to point out that the proposal we have accepted was put forward with cross-party support—the opposite of the claims of Opposition Members, who are trying to politicise a situation, when that played absolutely no part whatsoever in the decisions. My hon. Friend is absolutely right that these proposals for Worcestershire will benefit his constituents in Redditch because they will attract more inward investment, which means more jobs for the future and more money in the pockets of people living in Redditch, as well as across the rest of the beautiful county of Worcestershire. I have announced additional funding for every area going through reorganisation to ensure that services—particularly those used by the most vulnerable—can safely transition to the new organisations that will be responsible for them from April 2028.
Richard Tice (Boston and Skegness) (Reform)
The dictionary definition of gerrymandering is the manipulation of boundaries to suit a particular party, and decision after decision after decision in Lincolnshire, Nottinghamshire, Derbyshire and many, many more have, surprisingly, been the local Labour party’s proposal. Is the Secretary of State aware that the decisions made around the local government reorganisation have directly contradicted the very criteria set by the Government and, as such, will result in multiple judicial reviews?
Steve Reed
I remind the hon. Gentleman that the vast majority of the proposals I have accepted have cross-party support. If he has been listening to these exchanges so far, but he will have noticed that not every single Labour Member supports every single decision that I am making, which rather contradicts the case that he is trying to make.
David Williams (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Lab)
So much has been said across north Staffordshire about local government reorganisation, but it is important that we deal with facts. Can the Secretary of State please outline, in simple terms, how reorganising our local councils will benefit residents across Stoke-on-Trent North and Kidsgrove, whether they are in Mow Cop or Milton, Butt Lane or Baddeley Green, Talke or Tunstall, or anywhere in between?
Steve Reed
I recognise what a powerful champion my hon. Friend is for his constituents. The decision we took on Staffordshire and Stoke-on-Trent was taken because it is the best for economic growth and housing. Those are two of the great challenges facing the county and his constituents, and we need to tackle them. We want to support his constituency, so that we see more investment coming in, which will bring in the jobs that local people want. That will give them a better future and put money in their pockets. We want to expand prosperity to every single part of this country, including to his constituents, for whom he is such a powerful champion.
Rebecca Smith (South West Devon) (Con)
The Secretary of State claims that decisions reflect local identities. Well, I can advise him that the majority of my constituents and those living in rural Devon would highly disagree. Instead, we have an urban Labour stitch-up that ignores the plethora of rural voices who oppose Plymouth and Exeter’s land-grab plans and creates a rural council that would be two and a half hours from north to south and two hours wide. Is he also aware that he is creating a two-tier system? Parish precepts are likely to remain on the bills of South Hams residents, who will be paying higher council tax than the city dwellers. Does the Secretary of State agree that this bakes in inequality from day one?
Steve Reed
I am afraid to say to the hon. Lady that the south-west is sadly one of the poorest regions in the country, and her party left it that way. We are reorganising local government, and in the case of Devon we are doing so in a way that best aligns boundaries with economic geographies and transport planning so that we can get investment into Devon, which will bring the jobs that her constituents need and put money in their pockets. She may be against that, but Labour Members want to see her constituents prosper.
Andrew Lewin (Welwyn Hatfield) (Lab)
I welcome the model proposed for Hertfordshire, with four unitary authorities. Very importantly for me and my constituency, it keeps Hatfield and Welwyn Garden City together, and I am looking forward to working even more closely with my hon. Friend the Member for Stevenage (Kevin Bonavia). It makes sense because of the A1(M) corridor and our shared history of new towns and garden cities. Would my right hon. Friend agree that the single biggest benefit for residents is no longer having to navigate the complexity and confusion of a two-tier council system? We will have one council and one point of accountability for the delivery of services.
Steve Reed
I have had the pleasure of visiting my hon. Friend’s constituency with him. Indeed, I know the county very well because it is where I was brought up. He is absolutely right. The savings that we will realise through local government reorganisation will be ploughed straight back into the frontline services that he and his constituents care about the most. They will see a benefit from that, and greater inward investment. That will bring further jobs and opportunities that people in Hertfordshire deserve.
Sir Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (North Cotswolds) (Con)
If we had to have change, I thank the Secretary of State for listening to the vast majority of people Gloucestershire and coming up with the best proposal that was on the table. However, my real worry about all this—we have done a lot of work on the Public Accounts Committee on it—is what happens if small councils that have financial problems are merged into one big council. A number of small financial problems makes one very big financial problem. He really has to consider that when thinking about how we go forward with local government in the future.
Steve Reed
I believe that the option we have selected was the one supported by the Conservative party in Gloucestershire. We selected it because it was the strongest and most stable option, and presented the strongest financial case. There will be savings coming through this process, and they can be ploughed back into improving the frontline services that residents in Gloucestershire want to see running far better. It is good to know that they have the hon. Gentleman’s support in seeking to achieve that.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
Order. Can I make another exhortation for short questions, please?
Steve Race (Exeter) (Lab)
I welcome the four-unitary model for Devon, as I think it best serves the interests of everyone across Devon. This has been a long time in the making for Exeter. It has been increasingly unsustainable to retain Exeter—an economic driver of the region—as a district council. Does the Minister agree that this proposal will allow Exeter to better drive sustainable economic growth, jobs and opportunity, and will mean that decision making is better represented by the people in my city?
Steve Reed
I have visited Exeter and know what a great champion my hon. Friend is for his constituents, who live in what is surely one of the most beautiful cities in the country. It has such growth potential, and this proposal will benefit the people living there. The proposal that we have accepted for Devon will allow Exeter to achieve its true potential, as part of a Devon that can also achieve its wider potential. We cannot allow the south-west to continue to be one of the poorest regions of the country. People living there deserve the same opportunities as people who live in wealthier parts of the country.
Steve Darling (Torbay) (LD)
This could be worse for Torbay unitary authority. However, it is a catastrophic carve-up for Devon, led by Exeter and Plymouth—both Labour councils—and driven forward by a Labour Minister, which will result in a rural rump in Devon. Can the Minister please advise us on his belief as to the financial viability of this rural rump of Devon?
Steve Reed
Financial viability was one of the key criteria against which we assessed all the proposals, and we selected the most viable options in all cases where that was before us. We would certainly not have accepted proposals that were not financially viable. I believe that the hon. Gentleman’s constituents will benefit from the proposals because of the inward investment that will be brought into Devon, the jobs it will attract and the money that will be put into local people’s pockets. I know that he and I share a determination to correct the economic imbalances that hold back people who are living in Devon. They deserve more access to opportunity. Thanks to these proposals, that is what they will get.
John Slinger (Rugby) (Lab)
I thank the Secretary of State and his officials for all their hard work. I lobbied hard for a single unitary in Warwickshire, and I know that is not the decision that he has been made. There is pretty much near unanimity among politicians and officials at Rugby borough council and Warwickshire county council. Will the Secretary of State ensure that he looks at the disparities around tax income in the north of the county versus the amount of expenditure on services? Will he also ensure that towns and parish councils get a proper role, and that the role of MPs is protected, because it sometimes feels as though our role is diminished in this new ecosystem of government?
Steve Reed
I thank my hon. Friend for his question. I recognise what a strong champion he is for his constituents. I am sorry that he did not get his preferred option in this case. We had to select the option that we believe will be best, against the criteria that we have published. He is quite right to be concerned about the voice of people living in distinct areas in the county. The English Devolution and Community Empowerment Act 2026 allows for area committees or town committees that can operate with the councillors who are elected on to the unitary operating within that particular locality. They can act as a scrutiny committee and call in those responsible for public services or other decisions affecting the town or rural area. That way, they can really champion their needs and hold to account those who are taking the decisions.
Steve Barclay (North East Cambridgeshire) (Con)
When a Minister comes to the House on the last day before summer recess to announce proposals that his own MPs describe as “utterly unacceptable”, “sacrificing their communities” and “a disgrace”, and other proposals such as those for Cambridgeshire are put on hold, it is a clear sign of a flawed process. He has given no detail as to how long the delay is for Cambridgeshire or what the additional information he is now seeking is. Will he publish that today, or will residents in Cambridgeshire be left in the lurch over the summer, not knowing for how long this farce will go on, or what further information is being sought?
Steve Reed
In the case of Peterborough and Cambridgeshire, it is right that we take the time to get the decision absolutely right. I offer reassurance to the right hon. Gentleman and his constituents that our full intention is that the election schedule for 2027 will go ahead as timetabled and that the new unitaries will come into force in April 2028.
Kevin McKenna (Sittingbourne and Sheppey) (Lab)
I am a strong proponent of unitaries, given that the root-cause of many of the problems in my constituency is the fact that we have districts and the county council. There is no perfect solution for anywhere, and everywhere is special, but Kent has a lot of elements that are particularly special. We have three coasts, links to the continent and the rest of the country and, in my constituency, two industrial towns that are completely outwith the rest of the county’s economy. There are challenges around the decision that was made, particularly where transport links and NHS boundaries do not line up. Also, because the constituency has been separated from the rest of the Thames estuary, we are missing out on huge economic potential. Will the Secretary of State outline what we will do to accelerate devolution powers to Kent and my constituency—particularly to ensure that we are creative so that we do not just follow the medieval boundaries but maybe bring in some emergency development corporations so that we can bridge the gap?
Steve Reed
I thank my hon. Friend for the creativity in his proposals, which would further benefit his constituents and Kent. I am happy to ensure that he has a meeting with the relevant Minister to discuss those. The option that we have accepted for Kent gives us the best alignment with functional urban areas and allows us to attract inward investment that will benefit people in his constituency and right across the county. However, I am happy to discuss some of the other ideas that he has just put forward.
Pippa Heylings (South Cambridgeshire) (LD)
Residents, local leaders and businesses in South Cambridgeshire have been left in limbo by the last-minute announcement that the Government cannot yet determine the optimal option for Cambridgeshire’s local government reorganisation. Does the Secretary of State understand the chaos that risks causing in one of the fastest-growing places in the country? Will he reassure me and local leaders that he will build on local successes, partnerships and the robustly evidenced proposals put forward, rather than on a proposal that smacks of irrational gerrymandering?
Steve Reed
I hope the hon. Lady will agree that we should take the time to get it right, rather than rush into a decision that I do not think would be right at the moment. The intention is that the elections will go ahead in 2027 as scheduled. The final decision will be brought forward as early as possible after the summer recess, so people in her constituency and elsewhere in the county can know with certainty how they are moving forward.
Andrew Pakes (Peterborough) (Lab/Co-op)
My role as an MP is to speak up on behalf of my constituents in Peterborough. The mess of local government is not the reason for the announcement today; it is the decade of austerity, cuts and underfunding of places such as Peterborough that has left us in the sorry mess that local government finds itself in. Peterborough is the fastest-growing city in Cambridgeshire, yet we have already heard two Members who are part of our reorganisation not even talk about my city and instead just talk about Cambridgeshire as a whole. One of our troubles is that successive Government policies have sought to erase Peterborough from the map by talking just about development in Cambridgeshire and Cambridge, and forgetting that we are the biggest city in the county and an engine of growth. Will the Secretary of State reassure me that we will know the criteria soon, that economic growth will be part of that, and that economic growth will happen in all parts of our ceremonial county, not just in Cambridge?
Steve Reed
I have had the great pleasure of visiting Peterborough with my hon. Friend on many occasions. He is always very powerful in putting forward the case for the city and the people who live there, and that includes, as he has just shown, his determination to ensure that Peterborough continues to grow in a way that will bring in jobs and investment and put more money in the pockets of his constituents. He is quite right to point to fair funding, because that has corrected unfair funding settlements for Peterborough over a very long time. The final decision on Cambridgeshire and Peterborough will be brought to this House as early as possible after the summer recess. It is important that we get the decision right rather than rush it now, but I will ensure that he is fully involved in those conversations as we move forward.
Edward Argar (Melton and Syston) (Con)
I live in my patch and I know that there will be genuine local fury at the contempt this Government have shown for my constituents in approving a Leicester city land grab, which has cross-party opposition locally. I have been clear throughout, as have my local councillors and my residents, in our opposition to a Leicester city land grab that will take county communities such as Syston, Thurmaston, Queniborough, Barkby and Beeby into the city and see local residents paying more tax for almost certainly less in the way of services. I continue to oppose what the Secretary of State has announced today, so I have a simple question for him: what makes him think that the views of the Labour Leicester city mayor are worth more than the views of thousands of my constituents?
Steve Reed
As the right hon. Gentleman will have heard during the statement, there are reasonable people who support and oppose various decisions that we are taking today, but it is important that we move forward. In the case of Leicester and Leicestershire, the option that we have selected is the one that will best allow economic growth in that county. That is how we bring in the jobs and the opportunities that will put more money in the pockets of his constituents. I hope that, in time, he will come to welcome that.
Amanda Hack (North West Leicestershire) (Lab)
I thank the Secretary of State for his statement confirming the outcome for Leicester, Leicestershire and Rutland. With three very different options on the table, it is inevitable, as we have heard, that there will be opposing views on the outcome. My priority throughout this process has been to secure the best outcome for North West Leicestershire, in services such as planning, highways, housing, care and buses, and to make navigating the complex system of local government that much easier for residents. However, the biggest barrier to growth for Leicester, Leicestershire and Rutland is being without a mayor. Will the Secretary of State outline how devolution powers can be delivered post local government reorganisation?
Steve Reed
I thank my hon. Friend for the way in which she champions her constituents, whom she so ably represents. She is quite right: one of the key reasons for local government reorganisation is to streamline local government so that areas right across England are ready for mayoral devolution and the additional powers that will come with that in due course. That benefits people across the country where they already have those powers, and I want to see it extended right across the country, including to her constituents.
Charlotte Cane (Ely and East Cambridgeshire) (LD)
I refer the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, as I am an East Cambridgeshire district councillor. There will clearly be a great deal of uncertainty across Cambridgeshire and Peterborough. Has the Secretary of State considered additional funding for the electoral staff who are planning for elections in May, which the Secretary of State says he intends will go ahead, when they do not know the boundary of the council, let alone the ward boundaries or the number of councillors? Will he also explain what process he has in place to liaise and consult with local people over the next few months to make a proper decision on what will happen in Cambridgeshire and Peterborough?
Steve Reed
I will ensure that the decision is taken in good time for the appropriate electoral arrangements to be put in place. That will be shortly after the summer recess. The council will then be able to prepare for those elections. As I made clear in my statement, there is a record amount of money available for transitioning services into the new authorities, which her constituents and her constituency will also benefit from.
Linsey Farnsworth (Amber Valley) (Lab)
Local Amber Valley leaders and I support devolution, but we are incredibly concerned about the decision to split Amber Valley between two unitary authorities, particularly because the option selected was not subject to public consultation. It also places a huge burden on Amber Valley borough council during the reorganisation, with double the amount of work. I am thinking about my constituents and their absolute right to excellent public services throughout the process, and the Secretary of State will know, through my many representations, of my concern about capacity to deliver the change. My local authority is considering the next steps, and the Secretary should know that that includes all options available to them. I am pleased to hear about the capacity funding—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
Order. The hon. Lady needs to ask a question, as indeed do all Members, as quickly as possible, because this is taking a very long time.
Linsey Farnsworth
Will the Secretary of State give a commitment that the lion’s share of the capacity funding for Derbyshire will go to Amber Valley, given that we are the most affected?
Steve Reed
I can attest to the fact that my hon. Friend is a powerful and frequent advocate for her constituents in Amber Valley. The option that we have accepted is the one that best supports economic growth across the county. That will best support her constituents’ ambitions and aspirations for themselves, their children and their communities. It was also the one that we believed best reflected Derbyshire’s north-south geographies and economies. I am always happy to ensure that she has a meeting with relevant Ministers to discuss any further concerns that she has.
Dame Harriett Baldwin (West Worcestershire) (Con)
With a stroke of his Whitehall pen, the Secretary of State has just abolished Malvern Hills district council, Worcester city council, wonderful Wychavon district council and Worcestershire county council. He said in his statement that this is about making “real improvements to people’s lives and…communities”. Can he explain how it will help with the situation faced by my constituents, in which two major highways in west Worcestershire have collapsed and the council has no plan to repair them? This chaos is surely going to slow that down.
Steve Reed
It is regrettable that the hon. Lady appears to be defending a system with so much duplication that money is being wasted on multiple tiers of senior officers when it could be saved and ploughed back into the frontline services that might address the very concern that she is talking about. Labour Members and I want to see public money spent on frontline services, not wasted on duplication. I urge her to consider that what she advocates would see more waste and less money available for her constituents.
Josh Newbury (Cannock Chase) (Lab)
Like many in Cannock Chase, I am glad that this reorganisation, which no one asked for and no one voted for, is finally nearing its conclusion. It is fair to say there was not a whole lot of consensus on council boundaries in Staffordshire, but there is consensus on wanting a combined authority, so that we can seize the opportunities open to other parts of England and turbocharge growth in our incredible county. Will the Secretary of State give me some reassurance that we can get on with this as quickly as possible, for the benefit of the people of Staffordshire and Stoke-on-Trent?
Steve Reed
As always, my hon. Friend is powerfully advocating for his constituents. The option we selected is the one that is the best for growth. It will support opportunities in Stoke-on-Trent and Cannock Chase, bringing in investment and creating new job opportunities, so that people living in the area can access the same opportunities that people in other parts of the country take for granted but that people in his county have been denied for far too long. We are here, and he is here, to change that.
John Milne (Horsham) (LD)
It is astonishing that the decision for West Sussex has been postponed yet again. I understand that local council leaders received the information only this morning, in a six-minute phone call during which they were not allowed to ask questions. There is a high degree of consensus about what to do, but the Labour group on the south coast wishes to gerrymander a coastal authority that would be unviable from day one—the very thing about which the Secretary of State professes to be concerned. Will he, or his successor, have a meeting with all local leaders before we commit ourselves to this disastrous decision?
Steve Reed
The hon. Gentleman will be aware that there was a re-consultation on the situation in West Sussex, and an awful lot of stakeholders across the county submitted evidence. He would surely agree that it is only right and respectful that we take the time to consider all those proposals, rather than ignoring them and taking a decision without listening to what local people have said.
Juliet Campbell (Broxtowe) (Lab)
I thank the Minister for his statement. The option taken for Nottingham and Nottinghamshire sees Broxtowe borough council split in two; Eastwood and Brinsley will sit in the county and the rest of the borough will form part of the Greater Nottingham authority. What consideration has he given to the additional difficulties that splitting up an area will cause for our public services and electoral services?
Steve Reed
I remind my hon. Friend of the additional funding that is available for transitional arrangements; that is a recognition of the challenges that she has just described. The option we have selected for Nottingham and Nottinghamshire is the one that is the most financially sustainable and the best for economic growth. We cannot allow the wide economic chasms across this country, which the Conservative party did nothing about, to continue. Her constituents deserve far better futures than those left to them by the Conservatives.
Ben Obese-Jecty (Huntingdon) (Con)
The Secretary of State has announced that there will be a delay to the decision in Cambridgeshire and Peterborough. Most Cambridgeshire and Peterborough MPs are in the Chamber, but he has not gone into more detail on the reasons for the delay. What specific issues are causing a delay to the decision in Cambridgeshire and Peterborough?
The Secretary of State also mentioned that the election timeline will be stuck to, so when will the structural changes order need to be made for Cambridgeshire to ensure that the elections can be delivered? Finally, he offered the hon. Member for Peterborough (Andrew Pakes) a meeting to further discuss these concerns; will he extend the same courtesy to me?
Steve Reed
I am happy to extend the opportunity of a meeting to the hon. Gentleman so that he can make clear his views. It is important that we take time to get decisions right in cases where I am not satisfied that the information available is sufficient, so we are doing that. We will make the announcements in due course, and the elections will go ahead as scheduled in 2027.
Kevin Bonavia (Stevenage) (Lab)
I have so often been frustrated when constituents come to me with their problems with a district council, a borough council or the county council, and the councils pass the buck between them, so I am a strong advocate of people having a single unitary council. I am particularly pleased that the decision for Hertfordshire is a new central authority that goes along the A1(M) corridor, which would be great for our local economy. That is a major undertaking, so what review of the benefits and challenges of reorganisation will there be in the years ahead?
Steve Reed
My hon. Friend is a very powerful champion for Stevenage, and I have had the pleasure of visiting the constituency with him on numerous occasions. He is right to point to the many problems that come with duplication and the benefits of eliminating it. Buckinghamshire council estimates that it costs it £30,000 just to tell people that they have phoned the wrong council. That money will now be available in that county, and similar amounts will be available in other areas going through a reorganisation, to invest in frontline services. That will benefit his constituents.
The way we will measure the benefits of the changes is through improved frontline public services. I have also announced proposals for an outcomes framework and a neighbourhood guarantee, so that my hon. Friend and residents can see for themselves how well their services are performing compared with other councils in the area and across the country.
Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con)
Essex is a county of nearly 2 million people who are opposed to Labour’s plans by more than two to one, yet in a train-crash statement that has lasted more than an hour, the Secretary of State has not referred to Essex once. What on earth is going on in Essex? We are going to have shadow elections in May, but we may not know until autumn which councils are having the elections. When will we learn what is happening in Essex? Is there any chance at all, given the overwhelming public opposition, that he will drop the whole barmy proposal?
Steve Reed
I am sorry that the right hon. Gentleman seems to have forgotten that I made the announcements about Essex in a previous statement—perhaps he was not paying attention, but he should have been. I am sorry, as well, that he is against the savings that this will deliver, which will be invested in the frontline services that his residents will benefit from. When that funding goes in, perhaps he would like to write to his residents to tell them that he opposed the additional funding for those public services, and that it is Labour that put the money in.
Madam Deputy Speaker
Order. Good temper and moderation are called for at all times in this Chamber.
Jodie Gosling (Nuneaton) (Lab)
I welcome today’s decision, which brings an end to decades of destabilising indecision across Warwickshire, and I thank the Government for being decisive. The decision, which has cross-party support from four of the five districts in Warwickshire, will empower North Warwickshire to focus on growth, investment and funding to meet the needs of our communities, and allow us to be the masters of our own destiny. A previous report raised concerns about sustainability—this was before the Government’s generous settlement under fair funding—so can the Secretary of State reassure my residents that financial assessments were done in full before considering the options?
Steve Reed
I thank my hon. Friend for recognising the benefit to her constituents from eliminating duplication and putting the savings into the frontline services that her residents care about—it is a shame that the shouty Members on the Opposition Benches do not care about their constituents in the same way as she cares about hers. Of course, financial viability was one of the key criteria that we took into account in accepting the proposals that we are putting forward today.
Mims Davies (East Grinstead and Uckfield) (Con)
What chaos in Sussex! The West Sussex decision has been delayed, and splitting East Sussex is okay according to the Secretary of State. My constituency is the only one that covers both East and West Sussex in its current form. It is a dog’s breakfast. It is unclear on special educational needs and disabilities and adult social care. In the letter sent to me today there was no clarity on the Sussex mayoralty. There is uncertainty on elections. The one thing that is certain is that Labour and Lib Dem proposals are priorities. Why have the Secretary of State and this Department shifted so far from the initial proposals that we in Sussex considered in good faith? Surely that explains why so many people feel that this is such a huge mess.
Steve Reed
The proposals we are bringing forward are the best for economic growth and for savings, which we can plough into the frontline services that I believe the hon. Member’s residents care about the most. I have said on a number of occasions already that the reason for the delay in West Sussex is that there was a reconsultation. We have had a huge amount of responses to that. I want to show those people who took the time to share their views the respect of considering them before we come forward with final proposals. She referred to social care services. We have announced £1 million of transitional funding for all areas undergoing a reorganisation, so that we can guarantee that services come through local government reorganisation in a stronger position than they went into it.
Dr Allison Gardner (Stoke-on-Trent South) (Lab)
My constituency straddles both the proposed Staffordshire unitaries quite substantially. I welcome the creation of a North Staffordshire unitary—an area that has a long-held identity and significant growth potential—but opting for the smaller proposal for North Staffordshire and creating one much larger Southern Staffordshire unitary does create some concerns. I know that my Stone rural villages, such as Swynnerton and Oulton, will be happy with today’s announcement, but can the Secretary of State reassure my Stone rural constituents that they will be heard equally sitting north of Stafford, as they will be in the large southern unitary, and that the proposed smaller North Staffordshire unitary will be an equal member in the strategic authority following devolution?
Steve Reed
My hon. Friend makes an important point. Of course, her constituents in both the areas she refers to deserve and will have their voices heard. The English Devolution and Community Empowerment Act 2026 allows for the establishment of area committees or town committees—whatever they want to call them—on which the councillors representing the area on the unitary can come together and operate a scrutiny function through which they can advocate for that area. That will give them a voice that I am sure she will ensure they are helped to use.
Mr Adnan Hussain (Blackburn) (Ind)
Devolution can succeed only when it reflects real economic opportunity, not when boundaries are drawn around the communities facing the greatest challenges. I ask the Minister why my constituency’s council, Blackburn with Darwen, covering an area already facing high levels of deprivation, is being grouped with other councils that suffer equally from very high levels of deprivation. Why is Ribble Valley excluded from these proposals? There is cross-party consensus and consensus across my constituency and other constituencies that this is a stitch-up. All the Government are doing is lumping together deprived communities and areas. This plan will not work, so I ask the Minister to reconsider his proposals.
Steve Reed
I respectfully urge the hon. Member to remember that fair funding reforms have aligned funding with deprivation. Under the previous Government, only three out of 10 areas got funding that aligned with levels of deprivation and need. Now it is over nine out of 10—a far better outcome for the entire country. The decision we have taken for Lancashire, including Blackburn with Darwen, is the best option for economic growth and investment in the infrastructure, which will create jobs and put money in the pockets of his constituents.
Rachel Taylor (North Warwickshire and Bedworth) (Lab)
I have long advocated for Warwickshire to be served by two unitary councils, so I am absolutely delighted that the Secretary of State has listened. It is the model that is rooted in our place-based, problem-solving approach. It makes the most sense for the way people access local services, and it gives my constituents the best opportunities for transport, growth and jobs. My constituents have not been served well by Warwick, so I look forward to working with my hon. Friends the Members for Nuneaton (Jodie Gosling) and for Rugby (John Slinger) to help make our new council the best it can be for all our residents. Will the Minister outline what support the Department will provide to us and our council through the reorganisation process?
Steve Reed
I thank my hon. Friend for her question and her support for the changes being brought in, which, indeed, she has long advocated for. As a powerful advocate for her area, she will ensure that the changes happen successfully. Up to £1 million is available for each area undergoing reorganisation, to ensure that services transition safely and securely into the new organisations that will be responsible for running them.
Andy MacNae (Rossendale and Darwen) (Lab)
I have long been a proponent of the principles of LGR, which Lancashire and my constituents have desperately needed for a long time. It is a chance to reinvent local government. However, today, in respect of a decision made by the Secretary of State, I have to associate myself with the comments made by my parliamentary neighbours, my hon. Friends the Members for Burnley (Oliver Ryan) and for Hyndburn (Sarah Smith). I cannot accept the suggestion—the claim—that these boundaries match the natural economics of Lancashire. It will leave us with the most deprived local authority area in the country. We are good at making the best of things, so I ask the Secretary of State to work with me and us to bring in the much more significant capacity and capability funding that we need to reverse that deprivation and catch up with neighbouring places, such as Manchester. Will he meet me and east Lancashire colleagues to drive this forward with urgency?
Steve Reed
I thank my hon. Friend for his question and his powerful advocacy for his constituents. The changes we are making are, in part, intended to lay the framework for the mayoral devolution that will follow. That will provide significant new powers for Lancashire when it comes. I am happy to ensure that he gets the meeting he has asked for.
Amanda Martin (Portsmouth North) (Lab)
I am proud to represent Portsmouth, whose local people want their pride reflected in the name of the reorganised local council. Both Portsmouth MPs and, I believe, councils representing over 75% of residents, support including Portsmouth in the name. It would be laughable, if it was not so awful, that the new name being publicly criticised by the council is the one that was submitted by Portsmouth city council itself. Does the Secretary of State agree that it is time for the Liberal Democrat council to stop playing political games, stop scaremongering, stop wasting time and—I know it might be hard for them—be honest with residents about this process? Will he help me ensure that Portsmouth is indeed in the name of the new unitary council, because it is so important?
Steve Reed
I have had the great pleasure of visiting Portsmouth with my hon. Friend on several occasions, so I have seen at first hand what a powerful champion she is for her constituents. She has raised this point with me previously. I am more than happy to ensure that she has a meeting with me or another appropriate Minister to discuss her very legitimate concerns.
Neil O’Brien (Harborough, Oadby and Wigston) (Con)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. This morning, the Department arranged an official briefing for Members about what was going to happen to their communities, but Leicestershire Conservative MPs were not invited. I have seen the schedule, and we are not on the list. I thought it was a rule of this House that MPs should be told everything at the same time, yet some appear to be more equal than others. Can you advise, Madam Deputy Speaker, on what redress we can seek?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
I thank the hon. Member for his point of order. It is not a matter for the Chair, but he has put his point on the record. I am sure the Secretary of State will have heard his comments, and if a correction is needed, he will make it.
Michael Payne (Gedling) (Lab)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker.
Michael Payne
—Michael Payne.
I simply seek to correct the record. I should have, when I made a contribution in the statement, drawn attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests as a serving Gedling borough councillor. I seek through this point of order to correct the record.
Madam Deputy Speaker
Perhaps I also need to correct the record—it has been a long summer already.
I thank the hon. Member for correcting the record in that way as it did pertain to this particular statement.
Gibraltar: UK-EU Treaty
(3 weeks, 6 days ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (Stephen Doughty)
With permission, Madam Deputy Speaker, I would like to make a statement on the UK-EU treaty on Gibraltar. Before I do, I am sure the whole House will want to join me in expressing our sincere condolences to the people of Spain following the recent wildfires in Andalusia. Our thoughts are with those who have lost loved ones, all those affected and the emergency responders working under extremely difficult conditions. We are thinking of all the British nationals tragically affected by the fires, and our embassy and consular teams remain available to support those who require assistance.
I am pleased to inform the House that on Tuesday 14 July, I signed the treaty in Brussels, alongside EU Trade Commissioner Šefčovič, who signed on behalf of the EU. The Chief Minister of Gibraltar, the Deputy Chief Minister of Gibraltar and Spanish Foreign Minister Albares were also present at the ceremony, in recognition of the important role Gibraltar and Spain have played in the negotiations.
This is genuinely a historic moment. It represents the culmination of over five years of work, and I pay tribute to all those whose efforts have brought us here: members of the previous Government, including the right hon. Member for Braintree (Sir James Cleverly) and the noble Lord Cameron of Chipping Norton; and particularly my right hon. Friends the Deputy Prime Minister, the Foreign Secretary, the former Defence Secretary and the current Defence Secretary, and our crucial teams of negotiators in London, Brussels and Madrid. I particularly pay tribute to the Gibraltar team in the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, who have done sterling work at so many levels; it has been recognised in the Department, but I want to place on record my sincere thanks for all their efforts over many years. Of course, I also thank the Government of Gibraltar, who have been our partners at the negotiating table throughout. Nothing in this treaty has been agreed without their full involvement and support. I am also grateful to the European Commission and Spain for the constructive approach they have taken to negotiations. Together, we have found solutions that worked for all.
Throughout this process, we have been committed to transparency with Parliament. Since last June, when we reached political agreement on the treaty’s core elements, we have regularly kept Members informed of developments, including through private briefings and, on many occasions, being held to account here and in the usual ways. As I promised, we laid the final text of the treaty before Parliament on 14 July, the day of signature, alongside an explanatory memorandum, which was the earliest possible opportunity to do so. Members will see that, as I assured them, the signed treaty has not substantively changed from the draft treaty that I deposited in the Library of the House in February, which they have been examining for the past four months.
Signature of the text enabled provisional application of the treaty on 15 July. That has given the people of Gibraltar clarity and certainty. They do not have to wait for a far-off and undefined date of ratification before they can enjoy the economic and social benefits of the treaty—the fluid border is here now. Madam Deputy Speaker, you will have seen the joyful, moving and genuinely historic scenes at that border after so many years, which reflect the fact that people have been at the heart of this agreement throughout. With the European Union, Spain and Gibraltar, we have put the interests of the people of Gibraltar and the wider region first.
Yesterday morning, the Chief Minister and the Spanish Prime Minister, Pedro Sánchez, oversaw the removal of the final pieces of the fence, and there were emotional scenes. Workers, Gibraltar residents and holidaymakers are now crossing between Gibraltar and Spain with ease. The Government of Gibraltar have worked tirelessly to put in place all the necessary legislative and operational changes to make this happen, and I am very grateful for their dedication. As I said, they were truly historic and special scenes, and I was honoured to be presented with a piece of the now removed frontier, to celebrate this significant moment of a barrier coming down in continental Europe.
Having mentioned the benefits of the treaty, I think it is right to set out in full once more what those are. Over half of Gibraltar’s workforce cross the border every day. They depend on being able to do so swiftly and easily, as do the shoppers and holidaymakers going in both directions. The treaty guarantees that. Customs and immigration checks will no longer take place at the border. Instead, everyone arriving into Gibraltar airport will undergo dual immigration checks: first, a check by the Gibraltarian authorities, who remain responsible for immigration and entry into Gibraltar; and then a check by Spanish officials to enable entry into the Schengen area. Completion of both checks will enable people to move freely between Gibraltar and Spain as they choose.
As for goods, Gibraltar and the EU will form a bespoke customs model. Gibraltar will bring its standards and tariffs for goods in line with the EU’s where relevant. That eliminates the need for checks on goods at the border, making life easier for ordinary shoppers and providing reassurance for businesses. The impact of the treaty on Gibraltar’s prosperity is not limited to the fluid border, as significant a change as that is; it also enables commercial flights between Gibraltar and EU member states in the Schengen area, removing a block that has been in place for years. That will potentially bring new investment to the region and unlock economic and transport opportunities.
Among all these changes, the treaty preserves the operational autonomy of our military base. As Members will know, British Forces Gibraltar is a critical hub for naval, air and joint operations across the Mediterranean and into the middle east and more widely. The treaty fully protects our ability to operate to, through and from Gibraltar. Spain will have no ability to restrict the movement of UK military personnel or goods into the base. All information sharing will be limited to the necessary details required to support the new border arrangements. British Forces Gibraltar will remain a sovereign base for operations well into the future.
This treaty has always been about creating a framework for Gibraltar’s relationship with the EU and providing its people and businesses with the stability and certainty they need post Brexit, having been left out of the arrangements at the time of withdrawal from the European Union. Nothing in it affects UK sovereignty over Gibraltar, but to make that explicit, article 2 of the treaty clearly states that no part of the treaty can be used to challenge the UK position on sovereignty. Gibraltar is a vital part of the UK family—that will not change.
In conclusion, I would like to reflect on the significant achievement that this treaty represents. It has banished the fears of a hard border between Gibraltar and Spain, bringing back memories of the past. It has given Gibraltar the certainty to move forward with renewed confidence. It will enhance the prosperity of both Gibraltar and the wider region. It has bolstered our relationships with the EU and Spain, unlocking wider and deeper co-operation, which is very welcome. I am very proud to have signed it and to have worked alongside all those others to achieve a hopeful future, to put the past behind us and to find a way forward focused on people and prosperity. I want to celebrate that new relationship here today. I commend this statement to the House.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
Before I call the shadow Minister, I gently remind the Minister that the statement he just gave seemed to deviate slightly from the copy I had received. We need to ensure that they align perfectly. I call the shadow Minister.
Wendy Morton (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con)
Let me start by joining the Minister in expressing the Opposition’s sincere condolences to all those affected by the recent wildfires in Spain.
I am grateful to the Minister for advance sight of his statement. Our starting position is that an agreed legal basis for Gibraltar’s relationship with the EU is needed. Gibraltar deserves certainty about its future. Businesses in both Gibraltar and Britain need certainty. British citizens travelling to Gibraltar need certainty, and the many thousands of frontier workers need certainty. We need to have proper scrutiny, not least because an acceptable deal between Gibraltar and the EU has to do many things at once. It must uphold unequivocally and without qualification British sovereignty over Gibraltar and the express will of the people of Gibraltar to be part of the British family, not Spain. Every Government has a duty to defend the integrity of the United Kingdom and the British family wherever it exists. It must also deal with the practical realities of the frontier and Gibraltar’s economy.
However, we find ourselves in the extraordinary position that, with the treaty signed and provisional application under way, and even with the final sections of the frontier fence now removed, Parliament has still not been afforded a proper debate in Government time to scrutinise this agreement. Since the agreement was announced, the shadow foreign affairs team has asked five urgent questions and numerous oral and written parliamentary questions to try to establish the Government’s intentions, often receiving unsatisfactory non-answers. The FCDO is responsible for Britain’s treaty obligations, but it has been the Government of Gibraltar, including the Chief Minister, who have all too often kept Members of this House informed. I thank them for that.
Even today in this statement, there is no mention of the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act process and scrutiny, so I ask again for confirmation that the 21 sitting day CRaG process will apply. Will the Minister set out the timetable for that today? We cannot have a repeat of the way the Government have tried to avoid scrutiny with the Chagos deal.
On the substance of the deal itself, starting with the military base, can the Minister offer an unambiguous and unequivocal guarantee that nothing in this agreement constrains the operation, freedom of action or sovereign control of His Majesty’s armed forces in Gibraltar? Britain’s military base is not a matter for compromise, negotiation or shared competence. It is sovereign British territory, serving vital British and NATO interests.
On the entry of British commercial goods, including British foods, into Gibraltar, can the Minister confirm whether the new process has been stress-tested with British businesses and when guidance for businesses will be published?
On the movement of people, having a fluid border with Spain—a key request of the Gibraltar Government—clearly comes with trade-offs, and we should recognise that. The decision to have Schengen checks in a British overseas territory is obviously one such compromise, and there is understandably a real strength of feeling about it, notwithstanding that Gibraltar has always had its own entry requirements, including for Brits.
In the light of reported chaos at the border, it is imperative that the Government get this right. Given the totally chaotic way that the EU has introduced its entry-exit systems across Europe, it is imperative that we do not see a similar situation at Gibraltar airport. The Conservatives will be watching. What tabs is the Minister keeping on the roll-out of the new checks by the EU, and what is his recourse if British nationals end up being disrupted by EU issues?
Gibraltar’s new residency regulations came into force on 14 July. What assessment has the Minister made of their impact on the ability of British citizens to live and work in Gibraltar? What is the anticipated impact on British citizens of retirement age wishing to relocate permanently to Gibraltar? Do the Government have contingency plans to support Gibraltar if the Spanish Government stage any provocations for their domestic audience now that the border fence is down?
Finally, the Leader of the Opposition in Gibraltar has expressed concern that the UK-Gibraltar concordat envisages circumstances in which the UK could act without the consent of Gibraltar’s Government or people on treaty matters. What is the Minister’s response? If there were to be a change of Government in Gibraltar, what would the implications be?
To conclude, Gibraltar is as British as any of our constituencies. Britain and NATO rely on Gibraltar’s strategically vital military base. In an age of insecurity, the base is indispensable for our country. Any deal to secure a long-term future arrangement between Gibraltar and the EU needs to be subject to the most rigorous scrutiny in this House. The Government should know that, and they should expect that Opposition Members rightly desire to understand what this treaty means in practice.
Stephen Doughty
Madam Deputy Speaker, may I apologise to the previous occupant of the Chair? There was no substantive difference in my statement as delivered from the copy provided, but I may have stylistically altered a couple of lines slightly; I apologise.
I thank the shadow Minister for her very reasonable questions, her broad support for what we have signed and agreed, and her recognition that the agreement is supported by the people of Gibraltar. It is what the people of Gibraltar want and there was unanimous support in the Gibraltarian Parliament for the deal; that is very important.
The right hon. Lady asked about the CRaG process. As I explained in the debate that we had the other day, the treaty is now laid so the CRaG process starts, but scrutiny will only take place when both Houses are sitting—the intervening period of the recess does not interfere with the ability of both Houses to provide scrutiny. Helpfully, this aligns with the process in the European Parliament, which has its own processes, so scrutiny will take place in the autumn there as well. I remain completely at the disposal of the right hon. Lady, shadow Ministers and other shadow spokespeople if they have further technical or other questions, and I am sure that officials would be happy to provide further briefings.
I would gently say that we have answered many, many questions on this issue. We published a draft treaty text on 26 February—it has been available to study in this House for four months—but the text has not substantively changed since then. I have appeared before multiple Committees and indeed we had a debate in Westminster Hall just the other day. I am very happy to talk about this; there is absolutely nothing to hide. It is an important treaty and, despite the right hon. Lady’s comments about the process, I am glad that she broadly endorses it.
The right hon. Lady asked about military autonomy. I can tell her absolutely that military autonomy is protected—that was a key red line for us. Indeed, I think the treaty reflects a new relationship of co-operation: Spain is a key NATO partner, who we are working alongside on many different issues. The agreement reflects a mature and responsible way forward, but it does not affect the operations of British Forces Gibraltar in any way.
The right hon. Lady asked about goods. Guidance is being provided to businesses. There are always teething issues when bringing in such processes, but we are actively monitoring what is happening and ensuring that the systems can keep up.
The right hon. Lady asked about checks on people. I am not sure what she meant by “reported chaos”. I think there were some slight issues with the first flight that came in, but the second flight has come in, I think, without incident. We are closely monitoring what is happening on the ground. As with any new system, this is a dramatic change and there will be implementation issues. She rightly raises important concerns about the entry-exit system. The deal was made to prevent that system from operating at the existing—now removed—hard border, which would have been very logistically complex; she knows from the geography at the border. I am confident the new arrangements will work and we are monitoring them closely. Myself and other Ministers have been regularly raising with other European counterparts and the European Commission the wider entry-exit system issues that she mentions.
The right hon. Lady made some specific points about pensions, which I will happily write back to her on. I do not expect to see any provocations in the future—I am not sure what she was referring to when she said that. I expect co-operation in the mutual prosperity of the people of the whole region. That was clearly reflected in the remarks made by the Spanish Prime Minister, the Chief Minister of Gibraltar, the Mayor of La Línea and Spanish officials. Everybody wants this treaty to work for people and for businesses, and we see a new spirit and a way forward.
The right hon. Lady asked about the concordat. I have signed the concordat with the Chief Minister. I have also written with some further clarifications, which I hope are satisfactory and address any concerns, but we are very clear: nothing about Gibraltar without Gibraltar. Of course, we have some constitutional responsibilities, but as I have set out, only in exceptional circumstances would there be any difference in our position and we would always be working alongside Gibraltar. I set that out very clearly in the documents, which she can read. I hope she is satisfied and I remain at her disposal for further detailed technical questions.
Alan Gemmell (Central Ayrshire) (Lab)
I congratulate the Minister on this important agreement, which provides certainty for the people of Gibraltar, while also providing economic opportunities and important safeguards for that place. I thank Foreign Office staff for the work that they have done, and both the current and previous Gibraltar Government representatives in the UK, Jonathan Scott and Dominique Searle. Does the Minister agree that this much-needed agreement provides certainty for the people of Gibraltar?
Stephen Doughty
I absolutely do. The agreement enjoyed unanimous support in the Parliament. Gibraltar has been at the heart of the negotiations throughout: one of our key conditions was that Gibraltar was entirely satisfied with what was agreed. Fundamentally, the agreement will benefit people, businesses and communities —that is at its heart. I add my thanks to the officials mentioned by the hon. Gentleman.
Dr Al Pinkerton (Surrey Heath) (LD)
I draw the attention of the House to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, having had the privilege of visiting Gibraltar last July. I warmly welcome the agreement and congratulate the Minister and the Government, together with Gibraltar’s Chief Minister and Deputy Chief Minister on securing it. Gibraltar has always insisted that there should be nothing about Gibraltar without Gibraltar, and this agreement both meets that expectation and honours that principle. I also pay tribute to the Spanish Government for the pragmatism they have shown in coming to this arrangement.
The agreement finally resolves the existential uncertainty created by Brexit. It protects Gibraltar’s economy, safeguards our defence interests and gives the territory certainty and confidence in its own future. Self-determination is and must remain the bedrock of our relationship with all our overseas territories. Sadly, that is especially important to say today after the disgraceful scenes in Atlanta last night, where football was used as a platform to challenge the democratic right of Falkland Islanders to determine their own future. That principle is not negotiable and never should be.
I ask the Minister three simple questions. First, in relation to the EU’s entry-exit system coming into force, what reassurance can he give British travellers that journeys to and from Gibraltar will not face unnecessary disruption this summer and into the future? Secondly, have the Government assessed the practical impact of the Schengen 90-day and 180-day rule on British citizens travelling to Gibraltar? If so, what conclusions has that assessment reached? Finally, will the Minister reassure the House that the constitutional safeguards within this agreement are sufficiently robust to ensure that Gibraltar, the United Kingdom and Spain never again return to the uncertainty and border disruption of the past?
Stephen Doughty
I thank the hon. Gentleman and his party for their wholehearted support, which is very welcome. I assure him that the constitutional safeguards are in place; they are at the heart of this agreement and are entered into in good faith by all involved, particularly by ourselves and the European Union. That is why this has been a complex and long process. The treaty is a substantive document that ensures that the right safeguards and provisions are in place.
The hon. Gentleman asked about the 90-day and 180-day rule. People do not have an automatic right to go and spend beyond that period in Gibraltar at the moment, and Gibraltar remains responsible for its own immigration processes. We looked at these issues, and this is what Gibraltar agreed to in order for there to be fluid access into the Schengen area. Gibraltar residents are not prevented in any way from returning home to Gibraltar, and we will look at how these things are implemented over time. Fundamentally, this treaty opens up opportunities for people and businesses to travel to Gibraltar and the wider region. Hopefully, new flights will also open up—obviously, subject to commercial interests. This genuinely open up new hopes for travel and investment in the region.
The hon. Gentleman asks about the entry-exit system. As I explained to the shadow Minister, we keep this matter under close monitoring, as we do in relation to all entry and exit points in the Schengen area. We are always raising issues through our posts and concerns, and we raise things with the European Commission. There are exceptions and processes by which those can be dealt with when queues get too large or problems emerge, but we are confident that they will be dealt with in the case of Gibraltar.
The hon. Gentleman mentions the events yesterday, which I agree were deeply inappropriate and disappointing. It is a real shame that people could not focus on the football, and I think most people looking at the events would feel that way. We have absolutely no doubt about our sovereignty over the Falkland Islands and the surrounding maritime areas. The Falklands are British—they remain British, and they will continue to be British. Falkland Islanders want to be British, and they have explained that many, many times. Let us get back to focusing on the football.
Kevin McKenna (Sittingbourne and Sheppey) (Lab)
I congratulate the Minister and his counterparts in the Gibraltarian Government on getting this treaty over the line. Along with many Members across this House, I went on a visit to Gibraltar a few weeks ago, as part of the armed forces parliamentary scheme. It was incredible to see our British forces in Gibraltar and to see how many of them are actually Gibraltarians, and are not just from the mainland United Kingdom. I was really impressed by the Chief Minister and all his team; they were really looking forward to this moment. They are a very agile Government. We could learn some lessons from them—I suppose the population of Gibraltar being only the same size as the population of the Isle of Sheppey in my constituency probably helps slightly! Can the Minister confirm that there will be no diminishment in or deterioration of the capability and operational abilities of our forces and our base in Gibraltar? Are there things that this treaty enables us to do that will enhance our military capacity in Gibraltar?
Stephen Doughty
I am glad to hear about my hon. Friend’s visit. Having visited Gibraltar a number of times myself, I know that it is a truly special place to visit. Having also been caught in long queues while crossing the former border, I know how delighted I will be not to face that in the future and to be able to enjoy the wider region in Spain as well. The impact is very positive. There will be no changes to our military capability or ability to operate; our autonomy and operational capability remain the same. I think this is a new era for co-operation between the UK and Spain as NATO allies and in many different areas, and this treaty sets a new spirit for that co-operation going forward.
Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
May I warmly endorse what the Minister said about the Falkland Islands, and ask a question or two about security aspects? Given that both we and Spain are in NATO, the reassurances about the sovereignty of the base are welcome. Can the Minister confirm that on those occasions when military assets, including munitions, have to be moved into the area, the report that I have seen suggesting that everything about munitions has to be reported to the Spanish authorities does not mean that this cannot be done in secrecy when that is required? Finally, with regard to the border, is there any danger that, without the land border, people will be enabled to get on an aeroplane and come to the UK who might pose a security threat, and then we would be in difficulty sending them back? Hopefully none of those fears is warranted, but I would like to hear that from the Minister.
Stephen Doughty
As always, the right hon. Gentleman asks important questions. I can absolutely assure him that there is no change in the ability to operate in the way that we have done from Gibraltar in the past. Indeed, I welcome the new co-operation with our Spanish friends—our NATO allies. All the appropriate liaison will take place, but our ability to operate will not be affected in any way. That was an absolute red line for us.
The right hon. Gentleman can be absolutely assured that the wider security concerns were a key part of our discussions. They are important for Spain, they are important for us, they are important locally, and they are obviously important given air travel from Gibraltar. I will not go into the operational details in the House today, but he can be assured of that.
Amanda Martin (Portsmouth North) (Lab)
I draw Members’ attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. As chair of the all-party parliamentary group on Gibraltar, I warmly congratulate the Government on successfully securing this historic, landmark agreement. I thank the Minister and his team for engaging with the APPG and for his words today explaining the sheer emotion that this treaty brings to Gibraltarians. Having visited Gibraltar on a number of occasions, and having spoken and listened to its Government, businesses and people, I know that they are really proudly British and want to remain so.
This agreement protects Gibraltar’s sovereignty and its sovereign military base, strengthens our relationship with Spain, improves co-operation with our European neighbours and delivers what Gibraltar has consistently asked for. It has been backed by the Gibraltarian Parliament and supported by every former Chief Minister —I thank them for their commitment, dedication and trust in us. Does the Minister agree that those criticising this agreement should spend less time speaking on what they believe is for Gibraltar and more time listening to the people of Gibraltar? They have consistently supported this agreement and, as I have heard today, joyfully welcomed it.
Stephen Doughty
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for her work and that of the all-party parliamentary group. I genuinely welcome the cross-party involvement in that group over many years, which has always been done with a focus on the interests of the people of Gibraltar. I can see that a number of members of the APPG are in the Chamber today, and that is very important. I absolutely agree; we need to listen to what the people of Gibraltar want, what they have clearly expressed throughout this process and what Gibraltar’s Parliament has reflected in its unanimous support for the agreement. She rightly summarises all the benefits. It was a delight to see her in Brussels just before I travelled over to sign the treaty in person, and I thank her and all Members who have taken an interest in Gibraltar for their work. I encourage them to continue to do so as new opportunities emerge.
Andrew Rosindell (Romford) (Reform)
I understand entirely why His Majesty’s Government of Gibraltar needed a new arrangement following our departure from the European Union. Gibraltar was excluded from the trade and co-operation agreement by the last Conservative Government and left high and dry, so it needed a new arrangement. However, I believe this agreement is deeply flawed—it is quite clearly a constitutional compromise. British citizens will no longer have the same right of access to Gibraltar that we have today. Having sat in this House when the previous Labour Government tried to negotiate joint sovereignty with Spain, I know that we simply cannot trust Madrid or the European Union—if we give them something, they will give nothing back. Their ultimate aim is sovereignty over the Rock, so any compromise on the constitutional arrangements for Gibraltar should be opposed by this House.
Stephen Doughty
The hon. Gentleman was previously a member of the party that left Gibraltar high and dry when it was in government, so it is quite rich to hear him make those comments. I am afraid that I totally reject his claims. If he had seen the scenes of Gibraltarians celebrating and actually listened to them and what they wanted, and if he had actually read the treaty, he would know that it says nothing about joint sovereignty. Sovereignty was not on the table in these negotiations, and it never would have been. His comments about trust are completely out of kilter with what people on the ground want. People in Gibraltar and in Andalusia want to work together, have prosperity together and celebrate their trade and commercial links, so it is not for him to stand up in this House and tell Gibraltarians what to think.
Gordon McKee (Glasgow South) (Lab)
I congratulate the Minister on the agreement. Does he agree that it is only possible in part because of the work that this Government have done to repair the relationship between Britain and the European Union? That is in the interests of the people of Gibraltar and the people of Glasgow who I represent.
Stephen Doughty
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The benefits of this agreement go well beyond just being for the people of Gibraltar, La Línea and the neighbouring region; they reflect a new relationship between the UK and EU—one of trust, co-operation and working in the interests of people, business and consumers, not pursuing an outdated ideology. The element of trust that we all collectively were able to inject into these negotiations is why we have come to this successful conclusion, and it provides a very good basis for discussions on other matters.
Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)
Notwithstanding the article 2 sovereignty clause, this treaty demands that Gibraltar aligns with a number of EU laws, standards and tariffs. If the European Court of Justice is at odds with a Gibraltar court on the application of those, no matter of arbitration will ever shift the European Union from being absolutely wedded to the supremacy, in their eyes, of the European Court of Justice. How can that sovereignty test ever be met?
Stephen Doughty
I have been very clear that sovereignty was not on the table. Gibraltar—its Government and its Parliament—has freely agreed to this agreement, and a range of arrangements are in place, as well as dispute mechanisms, to ensure that fluid movement can take place across the border and high standards will continue to be enjoyed. Those are set out very clearly in the treaty, and I would be happy to write to the hon. Gentleman about the detail of those arrangements and how they will operate in practice, but I emphasise that this agreement has Gibraltar, its Government and its people at its heart. They have backed it, and they have agreed to remove that border and the risk of a hard border, which would have been disastrous for Gibraltarians.
Martin Vickers (Brigg and Immingham) (Con)
As the Minister knows from our Westminster Hall debate last week, I was part of an APPG delegation to Gibraltar a couple of months ago, where we had a wide-ranging set of meetings. I congratulate all those involved in achieving the treaty. One reservation that was put to me by the Leader of the Opposition there—who did, of course, eventually support the treaty—was about possible future changes. He wanted an absolute guarantee that the people of Gibraltar would have the final say on any future constitutional changes. Could the Minister confirm that is the case?
Stephen Doughty
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his consistent advocacy and support on behalf of Gibraltarians —it is very important to see that support on both sides of the House today. The concordat that I have set out with the Chief Minister, and indeed the letter I have written, set out how we will work incredibly closely with the Government of Gibraltar going forward to address any unforeseen circumstances. The treaty has clear provisions in relation to that, as well. Of course, we do not foresee circumstances in which those provisions would ever be needed, but it is important that they are always there, and I am confident that they will stand the test of time.
Transition to State Pension Age
Work and Pensions Committee
(3 weeks, 6 days ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
We now come to the Select Committee statement on behalf of the Work and Pensions Committee. Debbie Abrahams will speak for up to 10 minutes, during which no interventions may be taken. At the conclusion of her statement, I will call Members to ask questions on the subject of the statement—these should be brief questions, not full speeches. I emphasise that questions should be directed to the Select Committee Chair and not the relevant Government Minister. Front Benchers may take part in questioning.
Debbie Abrahams (Oldham East and Saddleworth) (Lab)
I express my gratitude to the Backbench Business Committee for granting me the opportunity to present this Work and Pensions Select Committee report on our inquiry into the transition to state pension age, which is a really important area for us to examine. Our inquiry follows very closely on from the inquiry we held last year into pensioner poverty—that report was published this time last year. During that inquiry, we identified the real health and financial issues facing many working-age people as they approach state pension age. This was particularly evident following the increase in the state pension age to 66 back in 2020, but as many—but not all—know, the state pension age has started to rise from 66 as of April this year, and will reach 67 by April 2028. Our reports have shown that people experience the effects of that state pension age increase unevenly. Our transition to state pension age inquiry asked a direct question: what happens to those who cannot keep working until their state pension begins?
The Committee recognises the pressures on the state pension system. In 2005, spending on the state pension and pensioner benefits was 5.3% of GDP. Twenty years later, as society has aged, that figure has increased to 6%, and it is estimated that by 2070 it will be as high as 9%. Over half of all Department for Work and Pensions spending is spent on the state pension and, as I have said, this is set to increase as our society continues to age.
The Committee recognises the need to balance sustainability, adequacy and fairness in our social security system as a whole, including our state pension system. However, fairness must mean fairness not only between generations, but within generations. Fairness to those who are least well equipped to build a secure retirement is equally important. Unfortunately, it is clear that disadvantage, ill health and frailty are not spread evenly across the country; they are concentrated in some communities more than others, and they go hand in hand with poverty. It cannot be fair to ask those with the poorest health, the fewest resources and the greatest risks to face the increase in state pension age without support.
The evidence that we received was clear: financial resources, the capacity to work, and good health help people manage the transition to a higher state pension age. However, many people reach their early 60s in poor health and unable to work, after years in low-paid and often physically demanding work. As the Health Foundation’s recent report shows, since 2012 the healthy life expectancy—the average age someone is expected to live in good health—has fallen by two years, to 60.7 years for men and 60.9 years for women. Again, that is an average; in areas such as mine, a former industrial area, the healthy life expectancy for men and women is 56 and 58 years, so we can see the difficulties that the country is facing with this issue. Of course, different cohorts will have different healthy life expectancies as well.
Many people experience disadvantages in older age as a product of a life lived in poverty, having few financial resources and having experienced insecure work and, often, poor housing. This poor health in later working life is reflected in different employment rates; for example, in 2025 only 42% of people aged 65 were in work. For those aged 66—the current state pension age—that figure fell to under 30%, less than one in three. However, ill health is not the only reason people leave work. The Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea West (Torsten Bell), told us that while poorer people tend to leave work before state pension age because of ill health and/or disability, wealthier people are more likely to retire early because they can afford to do so. There are other reasons why people leave work before state pension age, including becoming family carers.
On the flip side, we heard about older workers who wanted to work but could not find a suitable job, and people who had left employment because of illness or caring responsibilities and could not get back into work. Sometimes these people ended up having to draw down small pension savings just to get by before their state pension began. It is not generally recognised that the previous state pension age increase from 65 to 66 caused a doubling of absolute poverty among 65-year-olds. Our real concern is that the rise in the state pension age to 67 may have an even greater effect. The Committee heard that work-limiting health conditions among people aged 60 to 64 have increased from 28% in 2014 to 31% in 2024. We also heard that almost half of people aged 60 to 66 in the lowest income quintile were already classified as frail. These are people who are vulnerable to deterioration in physical and cognitive functioning.
The Department has said that the poverty that pensioners and pre-pensioners experienced when the state pension age rose from 65 to 66 was mostly temporary, because people were lifted out of poverty as soon as they reached state pension age. However, temporary poverty can still do lasting harm—it can mean going without essentials and carrying stress into later life. Half of pre-pensioners are already frail; experiencing poverty, even temporary poverty, increases the risk of accelerating or exacerbating this deterioration in physical and cognitive function.
These issues are not inevitable—they are solvable. First, older workers need better support, healthier workplaces and flexible working opportunities. The Government’s current approach is focused on supporting later working, including through the Mayfield review, which the Committee wholeheartedly supports and welcomes. As we have said in other reports this year, we wish the Government would do more to accelerate that work. However, it is unclear how many people would be lifted out of poverty by the Government’s current labour market measures. We hope that the Mayfield review will help in time, but it is a three to seven-year programme, and even if change comes quickly, it could come too late for many people who are now approaching the state pension age. Support to stay in work often needs to reach people in their 50s, rather than in their mid-60s. That is why my Committee concluded that additional social security support is needed. That is not an abstract concern, but a direct and foreseeable effect of state pension age policy. For people unable to work, the longer wait for the state pension can mean a year or more on inadequate working age benefits, a year using up savings or a year of hardship. We recommend that the Government as a minimum consult on an uplift in universal credit in the year before state pension age, with the aim of introducing additional support by the end of this year. We heard that such an increase would cost around £600 million a year, but that must be considered alongside the estimated savings of around £10.5 billion a year once the state pension age is 67, compared with if it had stayed at 66.
We recognise that work incentives matter, but the proposal is modest. It is targeted at people in the year before state pension age. Many of those out of the labour market at that point are unlikely to return to it. The overriding priority would be to prevent hardship that would otherwise be the predictable result of public policy enacted in the Pensions Act 2014. We also recommend that when the Secretary of State’s state pension age review commences, they consult on longer term support for those unable to work up to state pension age. That review should model costs and benefits, including the effects on work incentives downstream and on health and social care services.
Our report also looks at Government decision making. The Government have relied on impact assessments from 2011 and 2013. We think those assessments are now outdated and insufficient. They do not reflect the recent increase in work-limiting ill health and deepening inequality in healthy life expectancy, and they do not provide a basis for understanding who would be most affected by the rise to 67. In 2023, the previous Government decided to proceed with the increase to 67, but said they would keep under review the position of people unable to continue to work. No such review had been published by the time of the 2024 general election, and the current Government do not plan to evaluate the increase until after it is completed in 2028. That is too late. They will have missed an opportunity to identify risks and put mitigations in place before any further increases take effect. [Interruption.] I have just about half a minute left, if that is convenient, Madam Deputy Speaker.
The Committee recommends a more holistic approach to future assessments. The Department should consider the cumulative impact of policies on individuals. It should use evidence that reflects employment history, occupational class, health status, caring history, income and protected characteristics. It should consult the chief medical officer on health impacts. It should estimate likely poverty increases in time to act before they happen.
I also mention the importance of communication. Not everybody is aware of the increase to 67, and we know from previous pension policy the impact that can have on people. Finally, I express my concern about the irresponsible rumours of a potential acceleration of the further increase in the state pension age. That fear-mongering is unhelpful, to say the least, and is untrue. I commend my report to the House.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
There was no bobbing earlier. Does the Member really intend to contribute?
Gordon McKee
I am grateful to the Select Committee Chair, my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth (Debbie Abrahams), for her statement. Did she look in her report at the measures the Government could take to keep older people in work? As she rightly noted, that is a problem as people get older.
Debbie Abrahams
The Mayfield review came up with some good recommendations, which we thoroughly support, and I can direct my hon. Friend to other reports that made similar recommendations. It is important that we look at older people and not just people with health issues and disabilities.
Backbench Business
Sir David Amess Summer Adjournment
(3 weeks, 6 days ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
We now come to the Sir David Amess summer Adjournment debate, and I call Bob Blackman, who will speak for up to 15 minutes. Many Back Benchers wish to speak, so I suspect that there will be a speaking limit.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered matters to be raised before the forthcoming adjournment.
This debate, as you rightly point out, Madam Deputy Speaker, commemorates Sir David Amess, who was brutally murdered doing his job as an MP at his surgery. He was an expert in this debate. He would raise 25 to 30 items in five minutes, and then had all his press releases ready for the whole summer from one debate.
It is my first opportunity to pay tribute to Ann Widdecombe, who was brutally murdered. I remember Ann when she came up to Bedford and Kempston, when I was standing as a candidate in 1997. She came up with Michael Howard, and famously they did not particularly get on as ministerial colleagues. I was talking to Ann and she said, “Don’t talk to me, young man. Get over there and talk to Michael.” I said, “He’s surrounded by all these sycophants.” She gave me a keen piece of advice: “Use your sharp elbows and get yourself in the photograph. Do not let them be in the photograph.” She was an outspoken individual, and we miss her dearly. We thank her for the service she gave to this House and after she ceased to be a Member.
I was delighted by the local election results in May this year. I am delighted to announce that my constituency now has only Conservative councillors. My parliamentary neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner (David Simmonds), also has only Conservative councillors, and in my neighbouring constituency of Harrow West we made significant gains, taking 12 seats from the Labour party. We now have 41 out of the 55 councillors.
In Brent, which has one ward in my constituency, we have more than doubled the number of Conservative councillors. I am delighted that one of my Brent colleagues is now the deputy mayor of Brent council as a result. I look forward to the next general election, whenever the right hon. Member for Makerfield (Andy Burnham) chooses to call it, and the next local elections in 2030, when we will make a clean sweep and turn Harrow fully blue. That shows the revival in the Conservative party under the Leader of the Opposition. We have been rising in the polls, winning by-elections and gaining seats from Reform, which seems more interested in campaigning against a bin and continuing to pretend that the Conservative party is dead, when in reality we are winning and coming back.
As we have passed the halfway point of the year, I will update everyone on the important work of the all-party parliamentary groups that I chair. I begin by putting on record my frustration—I am sure many colleagues share this—at the increased bureaucracy with annual general meetings, extraordinary general meetings, membership, quorums and more. I have written to the Committee looking into this issue, asking that those concerns are looked into, because they significantly impact on the APPG work that we all undertake.
None the less, I will run through some of the successes we have had. I chair the all-party parliamentary group on fire safety and rescue, which was chaired previously by the late Sir David Amess. We continue to press for sustained action on public and firefighter safety. Nearly two years after the Grenfell report, the priorities must be: coherent implementation of effective building safety regulation, faster remediation, reform of construction products and approved document B, and stronger investment in fire engineering, research, competence and learning from fires. Fire and rescue services are facing growing pressures from wildfires, flooding, new energy technologies and increasingly complex buildings. The all-party group welcomes the recent investment in national resilience and firefighter health, but we will continue to argue for sustainable funding, properly trained and equipped services and a greater attention to operational safety, not least as part of the proposed college of fire and rescue. Earlier today, I hosted a reception on the Terrace for people who are bringing forward greater accreditation.
On the all-party parliamentary group on UK-Israel and the Jewish community overall, we have seen attacks in Golders Green on Hatzola ambulances, and antisemitism across the country rising significantly. We must join together as a House in condemning that in the sternest possible way, recognising that actions are needed, not just words.
Security concerns remain significant across the wider region and are a pressing issue for millions of Jewish individuals around the world. While Israel and Lebanon have agreed a framework aimed at preventing Hezbollah’s return to southern Lebanon, the group has rejected the agreement, whose success will depend on enforcement and international pressure. Iran also retains substantial military capabilities, including almost all its ballistic missile infrastructure and a stockpile of highly enriched uranium that can no longer be independently verified following the end of the International Atomic Energy Agency’s access.
I am delighted that the Government have finally designated the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps. I have raised that in the Chamber more often than I can count. I have tabled motions, put questions to Ministers of Governments of both parties and heard every excuse in the book—that it was “under review”, that it could not be done, that it was being “considered”, that the Government “do not comment” on proscription and so on. All the while, the IRGC was murdering Iranians on the streets, arming Hamas and Hezbollah, running cyber-attacks against this country and plotting on British soil against people who had come here to be safe.
I welcome the decision, but it is the beginning, not the end. The IRGC controls the Iranian economy through its sprawling web of front companies. That means that anyone doing business with the regime is putting money into the pockets of the guards. That has to stop. Every front company in this country should be identified, investigated and shut down, and anyone working for the IRGC here under diplomatic, commercial or cultural cover ought to be expelled.
I thank Madam Rajavi and the National Council of Resistance of Iran, whose painstaking work exposed the guards’ covert operations and financial empire, which gave Parliament the evidence needed and helped make the decision possible. My thanks go to the Iranian exiles here in Britain who were harassed, threatened and watched by these people but kept telling us the truth when it would have been far easier to keep quiet. The Iranian people have shown us time and again what they want, which is a democratic republic founded on free elections, human rights and the separation of religion from the state. I will continue to fight for that. Today, we are a step closer; I thank the Government for that.
As chair of the all-party parliamentary group for British Hindus, virtually every week I host an event in Parliament on behalf of the Indian community, bringing together the community, entrepreneurs and businesses who are working hard to contribute to the UK and showing the best of the Indian diaspora in this country. The trade agreement, which had been negotiated for so many years, has provided a welcome boost to the relationship. I hope that we will see future agreements and benefits for the UK.
I have also continued to work hard in raising awareness of the proposed sale of the only Hindu temple in Peterborough—a disgraceful decision by the council—which would see the only Hindu temple in the area closed, leaving a significant Hindu minority in Peterborough and neighbouring Cambridge with no place of worship. There is an ongoing court case and a review of the proposed decision, so I will not mention specifics, but I have made my position clear. We all have a duty to ensure that individuals can practise their religion peacefully. It should concern us if there are councils or individuals who seek to deny that for an entire community.
We have recently re-established the all-party parliamentary group on Azerbaijan. I was in Azerbaijan over the weekend and on Monday and Tuesday, meeting key people and speaking at a conference on energy. That reflects the importance of a country that is both a key UK energy partner and a source of stability in the south Caucasus. During the visit, I saw how disruptions to traditional routes through Russia and parts of the middle east have elevated Azerbaijan’s role as a vital transport and aviation hub linking Europe and Asia via the middle corridor.
As geopolitical uncertainty grows, it is essential that the UK continues to strengthen its relationship with Azerbaijan and does not take it for granted. We should move quickly to deliver the strategic partnership announced last year, deepening co-operation in trade, investment, defence, education and digitalisation. Having witnessed the impact of landmine contamination in Azerbaijan at first hand, where the liberated territories are being brought back into operation, I also believe that the UK should continue supporting the mine-clearance efforts. The UK and Azerbaijan already enjoy a strong partnership. The priority now is ensuring that our political relationship matches its growing strategic importance and that we continue to encourage Azerbaijan and Armenia to live peacefully alongside each other.
The Tobacco and Vapes Act 2026 has now become law, ensuring that anyone born on or after 1 January 2009 will never be legally sold tobacco products. This legislation, which was first introduced under the previous Conservative Government, is a strong example of cross-party co-operation delivering better outcomes. The Government’s consultation on the Act—particularly on tackling youth vaping—is extremely welcome. Parliament will have an important role in scrutinising the regulations. However, there are still 4.9 million smokers in the UK, and there is growing anticipation for the Government’s promised road map to a smoke-free nation. It is therefore disappointing that the planned NHS investment in smoking cessation support has been paused, particularly given commitments to expand opt-out support in hospitals and to create smoke-free NHS sites.
As the House knows, I am very keen on ending homelessness and the threat of homelessness, so I was delighted finally to see the long-overdue repeal of the Vagrancy Act 1824, ending the criminalisation of rough sleeping. Credit is due to the charities, campaigners and parliamentarians from across both Houses who worked tirelessly over many years to achieve this change and replace punishment with support.
In that same cross-party spirit, I hope that the Government will continue to engage with the APPG for ending homelessness, which I co-chair. While some indicators are improving, significant progress is still needed if the Government are to meet their goal of ending homelessness. As I have repeated on many occasions, priorities should include implementing the Supported Housing (Regulatory Oversight) Act 2023—my private Member’s Bill—expanding Housing First nationally and introducing a much stronger duty to collaborate so that public services work together more effectively to prevent homelessness.
As chairman of the 1922 committee—you were a distinguished officer of that body, Madam Deputy Speaker—I thank my fellow officers and the executive committee for their support this year. I am delighted that we have not had to stage a leadership contest. I also thank my team, who work in my office. Since I was elected in May 2010, we have dealt with 106,000 individual cases from constituents, and we have dealt with more than 10,000 this year already. The fact is that casework is increasing, not reducing, I am afraid.
I wish you, Madam Deputy Speaker, Mr Speaker, the other Deputy Speakers, the whole House and all those who contribute to our work a very happy summer recess. I shall start my work experience programme with my students on Monday—so I am quietly glad that there is no bank holiday. That programme gives young people an opportunity to learn what it is like to be with a politician.
I will end on a slightly lighter note. We often use this debate to test our vocabulary skills, so I am grateful to Parallel Parliament, which contacted me to confirm that I was the only MP or Member of the House of Lords to use the words “avenged”, “deities”, “inverts”, “handicaps” or “franked” in the previous Session.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Order. There will be a four-minute speaking limit for Back-Bench Members. I want to put on the record my gratitude to the late Sir David Amess. He was a huge mentor of mine and he constantly fretted about my security. It never occurred to me that we should have been fretting about his.
I want to thank my constituency team for being fantastic—especially Pavlina, who is about to go on maternity leave.
Adam Jogee (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to follow the Chairman of the Backbench Business Committee, the hon. Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman). I join him in paying tribute to Ann Widdecombe. We must be able to disagree without being disagreeable—or in this case, murderous—in our country. It is the British way and the sooner we get back to that, the better. Ann and her family are in my prayers and, of course, like you, Madam Deputy Speaker, I think about Sir David Amess and his family.
I am grateful to be called to speak so early in the debate; this is a novel experience for me. I have had to completely rewrite my speech following the Secretary of State’s announcement on local government reorganisation. In business questions earlier, the Leader of the House said that a new Administration may want to look at whether they want to proceed with any current proposals in other areas. I hope the next Administration will hear my call today to look again at that reorganisation.
The issue is important, because the people of Newcastle-under-Lyme must be at the heart of any changes to how our community is run. It cannot be the case that neighbouring areas hold anything close to decisive sway over decision making, or that the views, needs and concerns of people across Newcastle-under-Lyme are dismissed or diminished in favour of other areas. There was very little in the proposal announced today to suggest that anything will mitigate that risk, or that reassures the people of Newcastle-under-Lyme that their concerns have been heard. I will not stop banging on about this until we put it right.
More generally, I welcome the £120 million support package for the ceramics industry in Staffordshire, and I am grateful to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the Secretary of State for Business and Trade and the Minister for Industry, my hon. Friend the hon. Member for Stockton North (Chris McDonald) for their support in helping to make that happen. I welcome the roll-out of free breakfast clubs to schools across Newcastle-under-Lyme, which is, as I have said in the House before, best described as the centre of our collective universe.
I welcome the continued improvements to our air quality and the health and wellbeing of our people following the closure of the Walleys Quarry landfill site. That is one of the few things I do not have to bang on about quite as much as I did when I was first elected to this House. I have worked hard to represent our excellent local farmers, who produce—with their flock and animals —excellent British food, and I will continue to be a strong champion for them.
I have enjoyed visiting our schools and education institutions—we are proud of Keele University, Newcastle college and many schools—and engaging with and listening to our veterans and forces organisations. I am looking forward to a summer back home in Newcastle-under-Lyme, where the sun shines brightly. I would like to acknowledge the service of Godfrey, Margaret, Richard and all those who have looked after us, and those who came before us, for so many decades. I wish them well in their retirement.
I have a minute and a bit to go, so I will take the opportunity to add a few words. I thank my constituents for their commitment to our country and our community, and for holding me to account in no uncertain terms every single day. I thank my family for their forbearance, and my office team for all their hard work, their support for me, and their commitment to the good people who live, learn and work in Newcastle-under-Lyme. I wish the Prime Minister and his family well for the future and thank him for his service to our country. Happy summer, Madam Deputy Speaker—and there are 47 seconds back for you.
Wendy Morton (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con)
It is a pleasure to speak in this debate on the last day before Parliament rises. As ever, I have so much to say and there is never enough time.
As we approach the summer recess, I have reflected on the issues that matter to my constituents. What makes the communities that I represent so special is, inevitably, the people who simply care about where they live, including the volunteers at Pelsall carnival, the wonderful Wombles and the Aldridge volunteer gardeners, to name but a few. That same pride is reflected in our green spaces, so I was delighted to learn that five green flag awards were received this week across the constituency, recognising the work of groups such as the Barr Beacon Trust, the Friends of Pelsall Commons and many volunteers. Our green spaces are what define our communities.
Members know what I am going to come to next, because it is the last opportunity to mention the precious green belt of Aldridge-Brownhills. My constituency is under siege by developers, thanks to the Government’s relaxation of planning rules and their redefinition of green belt as grey belt. Currently, applications are in for the following sites: 345 houses at Birch Lane in Aldridge; 330 at York’s bridge in Pelsall; 245 in Chester Road East in Streetly; 81 at Barns Lane in Rushall; 160 at Little Aston Road in Aldridge; 41 in Middlemore Lane West in Aldridge; 600 at Chester Road West in Streetly; 850 at Queslett Road East, also known as Doe Bank Lane; and 155 at Longwood Lane—all currently under review. There are 2,767 applications in the pipeline, all on green- belt sites that developers have reclassified as grey belt. And that is not all: there is potentially more to come.
I know my constituency is a desirable place, but that is because the green belt creates its identity and prevents us from being swallowed up into a greater Birmingham suburb. We need more homes—of course we do—but they must be built in the right place. Instead, our communities face developers exploiting the definition of grey belt. Can a field of carrots or maize really be called grey belt? Of course it can’t—it is productive agricultural land—yet developers at Birch Lane are using that label to force the hand of the local council. At a time when food security has never been more important, this policy is a recipe for food insecurity. Once these fields are covered in concrete, they are gone forever. I could talk at length about this issue, but I think I will have to put in for a Westminster Hall debate when Parliament returns. I have no doubt that we will have a lot of support for that.
I want to touch on a couple more areas, starting with the importance of our local businesses. I go on the high streets day in, day out to speak to traders. We have some fantastic new businesses such as Serenity Kitchens and Bathrooms; existing family firms such as Alan Foster Butchers, Herbarium and Orchard Hills Bakery; and independent retailers such as H & Jodie’s. Their message is the same: they are resilient, but they need the right conditions to succeed. They need a Government who back business, and I do not see that we have one.
In Brownhills, our pressures were compounded by a high street sinkhole. Although the road has reopened, it reminded us of the importance of shopping locally. I am pleased that we have the Pride in Place funding, and I hope that we can make progress. In Aldridge, we had a challenge with double red lines and what some people argued was predatory ticketing. It is an issue that we have been working through, but it highlights the importance of free parking, which Walsall council put in place. Let us see whether the Reform-led council will continue that.
I am running out of time, but let me just say that no debate is complete without a mention of Aldridge train station, a project that has been secured but needs money. I will continue my campaign.
Chris Kane (Stirling and Strathallan) (Lab)
Much has rightly been said about Sir David Amess’s enthusiasm for using this occasion to celebrate the people and organisations that make our communities stronger. Many Members will recognise that some of the communities facing the greatest challenges often have the biggest hearts.
In my constituency, that spirit has been embodied by Fallin Community Voice, which was set up in 2022 with a simple ambition: to bring life back to the heart of the village. In just a few years, its volunteers have created a thriving community garden, helped deliver the Grub Hub community food project, and brought Christmas lights back to Fallin. Their work has helped renew community pride, and it is no surprise that they have been recognised at this year’s Inspire Volunteering Awards.
A few miles along the road, the Cowie Rural Action Group has spent many years quietly improving village life. From the Wee Club, which brings older residents together each week, to community projects including the village skate park, the Cowie Rural Action Group has shown what can be achieved when local people work together.
One of the best and, dare I say, most out-of-the-box ideas in my constituency began when someone looked at an old red telephone box and refused to accept that it had reached the end of its useful life. The Balfron phone box food exchange has transformed that familiar landmark into a source of practical support for local people, while reducing food waste at the same time. It is a simple idea, but often the simplest ideas can be the most effective.
In Strathallan, I want to recognise PKAVS in Auchterarder. I visited the charity last summer and was reminded of the extraordinary contribution that unpaid carers make every day. For more than 50 years, PKAVS has provided practical support, respite and, just as importantly, somewhere to listen.
I want to recognise a campaign that shows why community action matters. Last year, after a determined seven-year campaign led by Sarah Heward, the Tyndrum Infrastructure Group and its partners, a Changing Places toilet opened at the Green Welly Stop in Tyndrum. It filled a significant gap in provision and is a lasting reminder that determined local campaigners really can change lives. That message was brought home to me by Quinns, a remarkable young constituent from Bridge of Allan who lives with a rare genetic condition. His mother wrote to me and said:
“We are dependent on Changing Places toilets to give Quinns the same life experience as any other child his age.”
Inspired by their own experiences, Quinns and his sister Anita have become proud advocates for more Changing Places toilets, and have helped other families by raising awareness of just how important these facilities are.
Across my constituency, volunteers are quietly making life better every single day. The Friends of Plean Country Park care for one of our best-loved green spaces, while the Friends of Kings Park look after the historic park beneath Stirling castle. The volunteers at the Bannockburn and Eastern Villages Sports Hub have created a place where the community comes together. At the University of Stirling, volunteers organise a parkrun every Saturday morning, bringing hundreds of people together through exercise and encouragement.
In Fintry, the community sports hub continues to transform village life, and local volunteers have opened a wonderful museum that celebrates the village’s history. In St Ninians, the Mayfield Centre and its much-loved library continue to bring people together through books and community events. In Strathblane, residents refused to put up with a dilapidated library and raised the money to build a new one. In Braehead, the Crawford hall has remained at the heart of the community for over 30 years, while Braehead community garden has helped people to reconnect with food growing for more than a decade.
At the top of the town of Stirling, Cowane’s Trust has been helping those in need since 1637. In Riverside, Action in Mind provides life-changing mental health support, and in Causewayhead, Recyke-a-bike gives unwanted bicycles a second life, while helping people to gain access to affordable transport. Across the constituency, organisations such as Valley Renewables Group in Carron valley and the Callander Community Development Trust are generating renewable energy to provide a sustainable income that can be reinvested directly in local communities.
I have mentioned some of the organisations in my constituency. I do not have time to mention them all, but it has been a privilege to place on record my thanks to a few of the volunteers, charities and community champions who make Stirling and Strathallan such a special place.
Wendy Chamberlain (North East Fife) (LD)
Madam Deputy Speaker, as we prepare for the longer summer recess and reflect on the past year, I want to extend my thanks to you and your team, and to Mr Speaker and his wider team for your and their work in making this place function as it does. I also put on record my thanks to all the amazing staff who work here in Parliament. I know that every single one of us is a doughty champion— I hear that phrase often at the Dispatch Box—but it is true of those who work in Parliament too, as well as of our staff who work out in the constituencies.
On a global scale, I know that many of my constituents in North East Fife care deeply and, indeed, despair about the horrific events in the middle east. I was unable to be here for last week’s debate on trade with illegal settlements in the west bank due to the late running of prior business, and I want to reiterate the comments of my hon. Friends and other hon. Members who called for a ban on all trade in goods and services to those occupied territories. Guidance to UK business is simply not good enough, particularly when significant building contracts are going out to tender, and UK Government requests might not outweigh the demands of shareholders and private equity contracts.
I also want to raise the worsening situation in the village of Umm al-Khair, which has been subject to multiple demolition orders from the Israeli civil administration. Just yesterday, I was at a meeting with Na’amod, a movement of Jews in the UK against occupation in the west bank, and those attending asked for urgent diplomatic intervention. I ask the Leader of the House to take note of that and feed it back to the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office. This Palestinian village is currently having its future decided by a military court, and we must use all our diplomatic levers to prevent it from being demolished entirely.
Energy costs are high, and there has never been a more important time for us to retrofit households to make them as energy-efficient and green in their use as possible. However, when people’s homes are at stake, these retrofits must be done right, and several of my constituents have had their homes in effect trashed by workmen installing heat pumps funded through the Government’s energy company obligation 4 scheme. Ministers and officials in the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero are well aware of this, as I have raised it both in this place and more generally.
I had a meeting with some of my constituents and the Minister for Energy Consumers last year. That meeting was in December, and since then my team have written multiple times to follow up on the pledges made. I note a letter from the Minister to interested MPs today. Sadly, though, it is primarily focused on faulty solid wall insulation, and did not refer to the heat pump issues being experienced by my constituents and others. My constituents were promised audits of their properties for the purpose of remedial works, and although I am grateful to the Minister for his time, I do want to get something beyond my email update from last December.
Some of the building problems that my constituents have experienced stem from a lack of training and oversight for refitting older rural properties. Life in a rural community has its benefits, but it also comes with its own unique set of policy challenges, which are too often ignored. I have been trying consistently to get a banking hub for Cupar in the centre of my constituency, and I was pleased to meet the Chief Secretary to the Treasury at her surgery on Monday to discuss the review of the rules governing banking access. It is vital that everyone who needs access to financial advice can get it. As part of my battle for banking, I have spent a few Fridays travelling the bus routes of North East Fife to understand how hard it is to access services that are further away.
I would love to invite you, Madam Deputy Speaker, to visit North East Fife at any time—in fact, anybody is welcome. We look forward to the Largo and Pittenweem arts festivals this summer, and the Leven putting green is open every day, but I would never suggest that any hon. Members travelled across it by bus.
I want to finish by briefly highlighting a challenge that the University of St Andrews is experiencing in relation to cuts to the Science and Technology Facilities Council budget, which will badly affect the astronomy department. Cutting research and development is never the right answer, particularly with the scale of the challenges before us. I do hope that this decision can be revisited.
Mary Glindon (Newcastle upon Tyne East and Wallsend) (Lab)
I am sure we are all aware of the importance of the role played by civil servants across the whole country. People often devote their whole working lives to these roles, so the least they deserve is to get the pensions they have paid for on time, and for their loved ones to receive their entitlements following bereavement. Sadly, the disastrous performance of Capita saw the backlog rocket to 120,000 in the first four weeks of it commencing work on the contract. I hope the Government manage to get the scheme sorted out as quickly as possible, and suspend payment and all future contract awards to Capita pending a full review. The decision to award Synergy the contract for payroll services across four Government Departments flies in the face of our Government’s commitment to delivering the biggest wave of insourcing for a generation. Could we hit pause and review its ability to deliver before civil servants start to go unpaid, too?
Today, civil servants from the Public and Commercial Services Union are starting strike action at the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office in a dispute over staff restructuring. We appreciate that internal reorganisation is sometimes required, but too often there has been a failure to consult, including over planned closures to civil service offices, including the Department for Education office in Newcastle. I know other Members will have experienced similar situations with regard to other departmental offices across the country. I hope the Cabinet Office ensures that all Departments have proper discussions with the trade unions representing members affected by changes, especially where the closure of offices would be damaging to local economies and communities. An economic impact assessment really should be conducted before such plans go ahead. Could we also please extend a vote of thanks to all our hard-working civil servants and agree to listen to their concerns? Doing so could have helped to avoid many of the problems in the case of Capita.
Sir David Amess frequently raised the issue of hepatitis, as he was the chair of the all-party parliamentary group on liver health. World Hepatitis Day is on 28 July, and the UK has committed to achieving the World Health Organisation’s goal of eliminating hepatitis C as a public health concern by 2030. The virus disproportionately affects disadvantaged and marginalised communities. It is preventable and curable. Left undetected, it can cause fatal cirrhosis and liver cancer. I am sure the House will join me in commending the efforts of our NHS, the Hepatitis C Trust, and harm reduction services, which have had considerable success in finding, engaging, testing and treating people who are at risk. Thanks to them, the UK is within reach of meeting the World Health Organisation’s target of hepatitis C elimination by 2030.
Another concern of Sir David’s that I share, as my north-east region is the worst affected in the country, is alcohol harms. I pay tribute to the organisation Balance, which has done excellent work in the north-east to raise awareness that alcohol causes seven types of cancer, including bowel cancer and breast cancer. Last year the drugs, alcohol and justice APPG, which Sir David supported and I formerly chaired, published a paper reminding us that although alcohol misuse costs our NHS an estimate £3.5 billion, there has been no alcohol strategy since 2012.
As we await a new PM and a new senior team to start work, I want to take this moment to congratulate the Minister for Equalities, Bridget Phillipson, for this week completing orders to enact the updated Equality and Human Rights Commission code of practice on services, public functions and associations, which will come into force on 5 August. There are now no more excuses. All service providers, local authorities and organisations, including our Government Departments, must bring their policies into line with the Equality Act 2010, so that women-only services and spaces are exactly that—for biological women only.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
A reminder for colleagues that we do not mention Members’ names directly; we mention them by their constituencies.
David Davis (Goole and Pocklington) (Con)
Last month’s sentencing of Nicola Sturgeon’s husband exposed the real reasons behind the Scottish Government’s persecution of Alex Salmond. From 2010 to 2022, Peter Murrell abused his position to embezzle almost £500,000 from the SNP to buy luxury items. He used SNP money to buy a £33,000 Volkswagen Golf. Then he stole £57,000 to buy a Jaguar car. Further luxuries included handbags, an £850 gold pendant, four separate coffee machines costing £9,000, luxury kitchenware, at least 26 fountain pens costing nearly £21,000, and two £350 Dyson hairdryers—for a man with no hair. Really? Then, of course, there is the infamous £124,000 motorhome. Did Sturgeon not wonder where he got the money for all the vehicles, the kitchenware, the handbags, the pens, the pendant she loved? After all, who used the Dyson hairdryers in that household?
My view on Sturgeon’s denial is clear: she is lying. She knew full well what her husband was doing and how those luxury purchases were funded. That Murrell was a thief was obvious in the 1980s, when he stole from Alex Salmond. Salmond told Sturgeon it was deeply unwise to keep her husband on as chief executive, but she kept him in place, enabling his crimes for years. Eventually, in March 2021, three members of the SNP’s finance committee withdrew and resigned, blaming “chaotic” and “incompetent” financial management. In their own words, they were on the receiving end of a “hostile” backlash, driven by Sturgeon’s “toxic culture”. They resigned in protest and were later followed by the treasurer of the organisation. Sturgeon told colleagues at the meeting where those first resignations happened:
“There are no reasons for people to be concerned about the party’s finances”—
no reasons. And when the treasurer resigned, she ignored it.
Sturgeon was part of a cover-up, using her position to suppress justice. She behaved dishonourably and dishonestly, but her most evil act was stitching up Alex Salmond to hide the truth. When he was considering going on the national executive himself, the risk to the conspirators was clear: here is a numerate man who could not be silenced. So what did they do? In Salmond’s own words, there was “a malicious and concerted” attempt to remove him from public life in Scotland by
“a range of individuals within the Scottish Government”.
Senior Scottish Government figures created a procedure for dealing with sexual harassment allegations that deliberately targeted Salmond. The procedure was so biased that a judge ruled it “unlawful” and “tainted by apparent bias”. Having lost that, senior figures brought prosecutions against him, but Salmond was acquitted on all charges by a majority female jury, before a female judge. It now appears clear that those actions, to destroy a man’s reputation and life, were motivated by a desire to hide their own crimes.
There are many unresolved questions. What happened with the £60,000-worth of items that were dropped from the indictment: the hair stylers, the lingerie and the books by Sturgeon’s favourite authors? Murrell was clearly protecting Sturgeon by removing items that incriminated her. In the investigation, the police had further questions for Sturgeon, but prosecutors stopped them from putting them. Those prosecutors worked for the Lord Advocate, the principal legal adviser to the Scottish Government—a clear conflict of interest.
There is a clear pattern of secrecy, obstruction and power used to protect power—a pattern started by Sturgeon. Scotland needs a fresh start. That starts with a judicial inquiry into this entire sordid scandal, because it is a scandal that cost Alex Salmond his life.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
In keeping with the late David Amess’s approach, the summer Adjournment debate is indeed broad.
Alex Mayer (Dunstable and Leighton Buzzard) (Lab)
First, I have to say to the Leader of the House that I have a complaint about this Labour Government: it has entirely messed up the pattern of my life! At the beginning of every year, I used to know what I was going to be doing: I would be standing outside a train station, complaining about Tory fare rises—but no more! This Labour Government have introduced the first fare freeze in 30 years, alongside bringing in Great British Railways.
Come Easter, I would be campaigning about hens and eggs, as we would all be thinking about them. I have always thought that it is unfair that it should be allowed for hens to be in cages no bigger than the size of an A4 piece of paper, with no ability to display their natural behaviours, flap around and do the things that hens should be doing. They are called enhanced cages; I always thought that the marketing people had really earned their stripes by calling them that, because they are absolutely confinement cages. But again, this Labour Government are sorting it out. They are ensuring that, as part of the biggest change to animal welfare in a generation, we are going to get rid of those cages. I even heard today that the Government are consulting on fireworks, so I have no idea what I will be campaigning about come November!
There is a summer campaign, though, that this Labour Government still need to sort out. In the first month that I came to this place, I asked about maximum working temperatures and was told by the Minister that they were going to work to bring forward discussions with the Health and Safety Executive. By 2025, I was told by Ministers that they had given approval for the HSE to look into it, and this year I was told that the HSE is looking into it and that there would be a consultation in due course. I would say that is slow and steady—perhaps a little too slow, because there is a climate emergency. I do not think many people would deny that, except perhaps for some on the opposition Benches
I have heard story after story from my constituents over the recent heatwaves of unsafe working temperatures in factories, shops, offices and classrooms. I was looking back at some of the previous debates on this subject, because Parliament has actually been talking about temperatures for workers for many years. The brilliant people in the Library actually showed me Hansard reports from the 1930s, which was the first time MPs were really talking about monitoring temperatures in workplaces and ensuring that there was a thermometer in every factory. It was at that time that the idea of minimum working temperatures was put into place.
Today we absolutely have to ensure that there is a maximum temperature in place as well. It is something that there is widespread support for. It is very similar to the minimum working temperature. Looking at the debates from the 1930s, we can see that workers were feeling unwell and were actually unproductive in temperatures that are not acceptable. Fast forward to our changed climate now, and the same is true today.
I think this is something we really must get our teeth into at speed. The climate has changed, and so must our laws.
Steve Darling (Torbay) (LD)
It is poignant that we are having the Sir David Amess debate today, particularly in the light of the shocking murder of Ann Widdecombe only a week ago. Ann was a Devon resident, and although I may not have seen eye to eye with her politically, she definitely brought authenticity into politics in spades.
Ann would have benefited from Torbay hospital, which she could probably have seen from Dartmoor—there is an incredible view from certain patches of Dartmoor down to the fair constituency of Torbay. That hospital needs significant investment. Sadly, it has drifted down the performance league tables. It was promised investment under the Conservatives, but that was never delivered. There are fears of services being torn away from the hospital. Together with the Heart Campaign in Torbay, I am campaigning hard to protect those services and get investment. Like others, I believe that there is a lack of acknowledgment of our frail elderly population in Devon, where the finances are not following that particular challenge.
You may be planning to visit Devon at some stage, Madam Deputy Speaker. In Torbay, we have an incredible hospitality offer, but it is really challenged at the moment with the national insurance hikes, the increases in utility bills and the failure by the Government to change our business rates. I implore the Government to reflect on our hospitality industry and to take a leaf out of the Liberal Democrats’ book and cut VAT by 5% for 18 months to support our hospitality industry, because that would give it a significant boost.
Many people may be planning to visit the English riviera this summer, and when they do they may venture on to our coasts. I hope that the Minister will ensure that common sense prevails in appropriately recompensing our coastguards, who put themselves in danger’s way to support people in tragic circumstances. I hope that we will see a positive way forward there.
As a Member who has a disability, I am delighted that this is Disability Pride Month. I am, however, really disappointed in the failure of my local council, Torbay council, to engage with me appropriately on special educational needs and disabilities issues. An MP should be there to champion his constituents, and I am now having to take this matter on to the ombudsman.
In conclusion, I thank all the staff across the parliamentary estate for their sterling work. I also thank my staff for their sterling work supporting my constituents, whether in sunny Torbay or in even hotter Westminster.
Sarah Hall (Warrington South) (Lab/Co-op)
I want to use my contribution today to talk about my constituent Lucy Harrison. I warn Members that what follows will be painful to hear—painful because Lucy was deeply loved, because Lucy’s life was taken in circumstances that should never have happened, and because Lucy’s family and loved ones have had to carry the truth of that day ever since. They have shown extraordinary courage in allowing her story to be told.
Lucy was just 23 when she died. She was from Great Sankey in Warrington. She had her whole life ahead of her. She was not simply a name in the news. She was Jane’s daughter, and she was Sam’s partner. She was deeply loved, and she should still be here.
Lucy had already achieved so much. She had earned a first-class degree in fashion buying and merchandising, and she had begun a career that she was passionate about. She was building a life with her partner Sam. Sam has described Lucy as the joy of his life. She meant everything to him.
Boxing Day 2024 would be the last time that Jane saw her daughter alive. On 27 December 2024, Lucy and Sam travelled to Texas to visit Lucy’s father and his family—her father, a British citizen, now lives in Texas. They were due to return home on 10 January 2025. However, on the day that they were due to return home, just before leaving for the airport, Lucy went into a bedroom with her father. Sam waited for Lucy in the living room. A short time later, Sam heard a loud bang. Lucy had been shot by her father. She was in her father’s home—somewhere she should have been safe.
It was the middle of the night when Jane, who was back home in Warrington, received the call that no parent should ever receive—that Lucy had been shot by her father and had not survived. Jane and Sam immediately found themselves trying to understand how Lucy’s death was being investigated, what evidence was being considered, and whether anyone would ever be held accountable. They were left trying to understand a legal system without adequate support from the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office. The Prosper police department investigated Lucy’s death as a possible criminally negligent homicide, but the case was later considered by a grand jury in Texas, and no criminal charges were brought. The gun had “simply gone off”.
When the evidence was later examined at Lucy’s inquest in Cheshire, the conclusion was very different. The senior coroner found that Lucy had been unlawfully killed. The senior coroner for Cheshire told the court that Lucy’s father’s actions on the day of her death were
“truly, exceptionally bad and reprehensible”
so as to amount to her death. She rejected the account that the gun had simply gone off. The coroner found that for Lucy to have suffered the injury that she did, her father must have pointed the firearm in her direction, failed to check whether it was loaded, and then pulled the trigger. She described those actions as reckless and concluded that that amounted to gross negligence manslaughter.
An officer detected alcohol on his breath, and he initially denied having consumed any. Despite that, no breathalyser or blood alcohol tests were ever carried out. The senior coroner’s findings directly challenge the description of Lucy’s death as a tragic accident, and they raise serious questions about whether the original investigation followed the evidence with the rigour that the case demanded.
Lucy’s family recognise that the legal systems in England and Texas are different and are not asking for the Government to interfere in another country’s justice system. They are asking for the findings of a British coroner—reached after a full examination of the evidence —to be taken seriously. They are asking for Lucy’s case to be reconsidered by US authorities.
I implore the Government to use every channel that they have to press the relevant authorities in Texas to reopen or formally reconsider Lucy’s case and to stand alongside a British family and ensure that the findings of a British court are properly considered. As a matter of urgency, can the Government ensure that the FCDO does more in future to support the families of constituents who have been murdered abroad?
Jane has said that those who knew Lucy know what she would want them to do now: to make change, do better and be better. That is exactly what they are trying to do. They are carrying on the fight for Lucy.
Dr Ben Spencer (Runnymede and Weybridge) (Con)
I would like to raise a deeply troubling case that highlights serious concerns about the integrity of DNA testing within the Child Maintenance Service and questions surrounding the existing safeguards in place to protect families.
I want to share, as was recounted to me, what happened to my constituent Ms Chelsea Millar, her fight for justice and the serious questions that it raises. Ms Millar separated from her former partner Mr Brown shortly after the birth of their son in March 2022. When she applied to the CMS for child maintenance a few months later, paternity was disputed and the CMS arranged DNA testing through Cellmark, an independent private company specialising in forensic and relationship DNA testing. Ms Millar attended an approved testing clinic. However, her former partner requested that the DNA sample be taken at Woodlawn medical centre, a location that was not on Cellmark’s approved list of collection sites. Despite that, the testing kit was sent there. Crucially, Cellmark did not verify that the centre was authorised or capable of conducting CMS DNA testing, and neither was my constituent informed of the change.
The result came back stating that Mr Brown was not the father. Ms Millar knew the result was wrong; she knew Mr Brown was the dad. Through her own determination, Ms Millar persuaded Mr Brown’s mother to participate in private DNA testing. That test established that the child was her biological grandson—Mr Brown’s mother was grandma—and as Mr Brown is an only child, it confirmed that the official CMS result could not be correct. Subsequent investigations by the Department for Work and Pensions and the police confirmed what had happened. An employee of Woodlawn medical centre, Robert Patel, had conspired with Mr Brown and tampered with the DNA testing process. Both Mr Brown and Mr Patel were subsequently convicted and sentenced to prison for fraud.
My concerns regarding this case are not limited to individual wrongdoing; it raises fundamental questions and concerns regarding the security of the chain of evidence relating to DNA testing and the process as a whole. Why was the DNA testing kit sent to an unapproved collection site without proper checks being carried out? What assessment or oversight of the company and its practices did the CMS undertake before and after the commissioning of DNA testing? Most importantly, what lessons have been learned to ensure that no other parent or child has to endure the same ordeal?
People need to have confidence in paternity testing, whether in child maintenance or other forensic uses. The chain of evidence needs to be secure. Will the Government urgently review that, and meet me and my constituent to discuss this case and the measures that can be taken to strengthen oversight, accountability and safeguards within paternity testing? Families must be able to trust that decisions that affect their children are based on processes that are secure, reliable and beyond reproach.
Samantha Niblett (South Derbyshire) (Lab)
It is a privilege to contribute to this debate in memory of Sir David Amess. Sir David embodied what it means to be a great constituency MP. He understood that our greatest responsibility is not just what happens in this Chamber, but what happens in our communities, our surgeries and our conversations with the people who put their trust in us. That is what this debate celebrates. Constituency work rarely makes the headlines, but it changes lives. None of it would be possible without my incredible team, and I hope the House and my constituents will understand my wanting to take this opportunity to thank them. They make me a far more effective MP, and I am enormously grateful for everything they do.
Since being elected, it has been the privilege of my life to serve the people of South Derbyshire. Regular surgeries and monthly coffee mornings are among the most valuable parts of my role. They allow me to listen, understand what matters to people and ensure that the work we do, both in the constituency and in this place, reflects their experiences.
Sometimes that work is about campaigns affecting whole communities: helping to secure the new school at New House Farm in Mickleover; standing alongside residents in Stanton in their opposition to the incinerator; and continuing the fight to protect Swadlincote’s nationally important pottery. Often, however, it is the individual stories that stay with us. Derrick was just four years old when he had already waited more than a year—a quarter of his life—for his wheelchair. Receiving a photo of him smiling in it when it finally arrived is something I will never forget. Then there is Alfred, who is just 10, and his mum Emma, who we helped access funding for specialist therapies. There is Kaeson and his family, whose mobility support was restored, and families who have secured vital medical appointments, specialist equipment or simply someone to help them navigate an overwhelming system.
Those may seem like small victories in the grand scheme of politics, but they are not small to the people who live them. Behind every MP, and especially this MP, is a dedicated team quietly listening, chasing answers, navigating bureaucracy and supporting people through some of the most difficult moments of their lives. No one in my team came into politics from a political background. Between us, we have experience in the NHS, business, education, the arts and the charitable sector, but we all share one thing: a determination to help people.
Our constituency office has become a place where local organisations can support others, from Derbyshire Wish, which helps victims of domestic abuse, to Derbyshire LGBT+’s monthly “Spill the Tea” sessions—I want my trans constituents to know they have a friend and ally in me, even if they feel let down by this Labour Government right now—as well as our accessibility action group, which brings together residents and partners to make South Derbyshire more inclusive.
Of course, constituency work is not a catalogue of success. We did not stop the Stanton incinerator, too many SEND families are still battling a system that lets them down and many of my constituents continue to face challenges with fleecehold, inappropriate development and poor roads. But being a constituency MP is not about winning every campaign; it is about showing up, listening, being honest, even when the answer is no, and never giving up on the people we represent.
Different constituencies face different challenges, but we all share the same privilege: serving the people who put their trust in us. If the people of South Derbyshire know that they have an MP and a team who listen, stand beside them and will keep fighting for them, I will consider that the greatest honour of this job—and, I hope, a fitting tribute to the example set by Sir David Amess.
Martin Vickers (Brigg and Immingham) (Con)
Earlier this week, I spoke in a Westminster Hall debate about the isolation of coastal communities. I had prepared a five-minute speech, but we were only allowed two and a half minutes—so here’s the other two and a half minutes.
The More in Common research group recently produced a report, commissioned by Associated British Ports, about understanding British coastal communities. The report is a wake-up call for Westminster. It surveys those living on our coasts, and the message is clear: 79% of coastal residents feel that the Government in Westminster do not understand their area. I have to say that I disagree with that to some extent, because many people, such as myself, live, work and were brought up in coastal communities. It is easy to knock Westminster for not understanding coastal communities or industrial areas when, in fact, many of us work hard to argue the case for the communities in which we live.
Young people in coastal communities can see the potential for their areas, but they need a reason to stay. Currently, 58% of young people in coastal communities are considering leaving because they feel they have no choice or because of a lack of decent jobs. In my area, we have Immingham, the biggest port in the country, right on the doorstep. If we unlock investment in port infrastructure, we can reverse the brain drain.
Turning from our economic future to the immediate health of our communities, I must raise deep concerns regarding NHS England’s proposed boundary changes for the integrated care board in our region. Neighbouring MPs and I have written to the relevant Minister and the ICB to argue the case. Services across North Lincolnshire, North East Lincolnshire and the wider Humber are deeply interconnected, and we need a single health ecosystem. If NHS England proceeds to break up our current footprint, it will directly undermine the viability of Scunthorpe and Grimsby general hospitals. Furthermore, 300,000 people from the Humber and North Yorkshire ICB footprint are threatened by the financial stability of the entire system. The proposals will dilute support and services in our area.
My speech would not be complete if I did not raise my long-running campaign to restore direct train services from Grimsby and Cleethorpes through to King’s Cross.
Martin Vickers
I have already raised the issue once, in Transport questions this morning, and I will do so at every possible opportunity. Grimsby and Cleethorpes comprise one of the largest urban areas in the entire country that does not have a direct link to our capital city. The Government claim that the creation of Great British Railways will boost economic growth and provide direct services. It is now up to Ministers to decide. They could, merely by signing an order, restore the service.
In my final 30 seconds, I must report that I had a close encounter with a cyclist this morning. Many pedestrians around London will be aware that some cyclists can be a danger; hon. Members can go outside this building and see hundreds of cyclists breaking the law. If we do not enforce the law at a low level, we turn a blind eye to law breaking at a higher level.
Melanie Ward (Cowdenbeath and Kirkcaldy) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to speak in this debate and to hear Members’ warm recollections of Sir David Amess, including from you, Madam Deputy Speaker. He was obviously widely respected across this Chamber. Last month, we also remembered my dear friend Jo Cox, whom we continue to miss. My thoughts this week are with the friends and relatives of Ann Widdecombe following her shocking murder. An attack on one parliamentarian is an attack on all of us.
I always say that community solidarity is our biggest strength in my part of the world, and I would like to use my time to highlight some of the people and organisations that are shining examples of that. I pay tribute to the Linton Lane centre, which celebrates its centenary this year. I was glad to join its celebrations. Formerly Kirkcaldy boys’ club, it is a thriving cornerstone of life in Kirkcaldy, providing a wide range of services to the community. The Linton Lane centre is led heroically by Mandy Hunter, who celebrates 30 years of working at the centre today. I would like to say thank you to Mandy for her tireless years of service, and to thank all the staff and volunteers at the Linton Lane centre.
Turning to Dalgety Bay, after the success of our new banking hubs in Cowdenbeath and Burntisland, we need a new banking hub in Dalgety Bay to ensure that vital banking services are still accessible there, especially to a population that is perhaps not always au fait with online banking. I raised this with a Treasury Minister only yesterday and will continue to push for that to happen.
I turn now to two pieces of good news. I was inspired by the work of students at Dunnikier primary school, who produced an impressive display of artwork to celebrate diversity at their school. The school had become the target of vile racist attacks online as a result of holding diversity day celebrations, and I visited to offer my support. What I saw there were children from different backgrounds all with a love for Scotland and pride in their family’s heritage. It reminded me that the real world is different and often better than the online world. These children had a greater understanding of each other than any of the abusive and racist trolls online. Let me say clearly that I am proud of the teachers and pupils of Dunnikier primary, and I hope that they are proud of themselves.
I warmly welcome the £515,000 new investment that this UK Government are making in Denfield park in Kirkcaldy through the Scottish Football Association. The current football pitch has been prone to flooding, and the new 3G pitch, which this funding will help pay for, will provide year-round football facilities for men’s and women’s teams across age groups and from across Kirkcaldy. I say a massive well done to all at the Kirkcaldy Community Football Partnership for all their hard work in making that happen.
As many Members have said, MPs would not be able to do our jobs without our incredible staff teams, and I am very lucky in that regard. I would like to say a huge thank you to Angela Bailey, who is soon moving on from being my office manager. I will always be grateful to her for her work with me in 2024 and ever since then, and I wish her and her family all the very best in the future.
That brings me lastly to a huge thank you and to wish you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and all the parliamentary staff a relaxing and rejuvenating recess—I think we need it after recent events. We are extremely grateful for all they do in making our democracy function.
Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Your Party)
When the hon. Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) introduced the debate, he quite rightly drew attention to the huge work done by our constituency and parliamentary staff. It is right that we should thank them on this occasion and also thank all the parliamentary staff for what they do. I thank those in my local authority for what they do, in particular the street cleaners who cleaned up after the largest ever football celebration in Britain when Arsenal won the league. I am sure everybody will cheer that straight away—no. [Laughter.]
I also want to put on record my thanks to two of the Members’ Tea Room staff who are retiring today, Godfrey Asare and Margaret Labulo, who have done fantastic work providing God knows how many cups of coffee and tea for all of us over many years. They deserve our thanks.
I want to refer to a number of things very briefly. Yesterday was the Prime Minister’s last Question Time. He gave a characterisation of the Labour party he inherited when he became the leader that I profoundly disagree with and is completely wrong. The Labour party was not financially in any great problem when I ceased to be the leader; in fact, it had very large capital and cash assets at that time. Secondly, to call the party “morally bankrupt” and claim that it had been found to be “institutionally antisemitic” is completely wrong and will not be found anywhere in the Equality and Human Rights Commission report. I invite the Prime Minister to correct the record; I am sure he would wish it to be accurate.
Many things will face the new Prime Minister when he comes into office. I hope he will fundamentally change our policy on Gaza and Palestine and on Iran and Lebanon, and at the very least cease military support and security co-operation with Israel. I also hope he will support my private Member’s Bill calling for a public inquiry into Gaza, in the same way that Sir John Chilcot undertook a public inquiry into the policy on Iraq.
My constituency, like many others, has a large number of leasehold properties, often fairly newly built and many of them covered with unsafe cladding that needs to be removed. I am pleased that the Government have made some funding available to remediate unsafe cladding. That is good, but why are the developers not being given that bill? Why are they not the ones who are forced to pay for what they knew to be unsafe cladding when they put it in? I hope we can do something for the residents in Drayton Park, Highbury Square and former stadium buildings in my constituency, because they have suffered very high insurance costs and are unable to sell or move, simply because something was badly built and they were unaware of that when they bought the place.
I wish to raise two other issues. I have a constituent, who I would rather not name because I think he deserves privacy, who suffers from advanced motor neurone disease. He is in a very bad way. He is getting nursing care from the local health service, and that is good. I have written several times to the Home Office asking that his family in Nigeria be allowed to visit. It has consistently refused to allow him to be visited by his son or any other member of his family. I appeal to the Home Office—I am sure the Leader of the House will pass this on, and I will follow up with another letter: please show some humanity for this man towards the end of his life, and let him at least have the opportunity to see the rest of his family before he passes on from a most terrible condition.
The shop Fish & Cook on Blackstock Road is closing. I ask that this successful small business is not allowed to be turned into a 24-hour gaming place and that we are given the powers to stop this kind of thing happening on our high streets around this country.
Lewis Atkinson (Sunderland Central) (Lab)
In the last year, Sunderland has shown that it is truly a city on the up. A new hospital, library, bridge, construction skills academy, offices and housing are all open or opening soon—all secured under a Labour council—and there are investment plans in place for the Crown Works film studio, expansion of the Metro to Washington and much more now.
Reform UK Sunderland might have criticised city centre regeneration as “vanity projects” and opposed council investment, but in the spirit of constructive cross-party engagement that I have tried to adopt following its victory in May, I should acknowledge that Reform has promised to bring back the airshow, which was an annual highlight of my childhood. That will presumably be returning next July, so I want to extend an early invite to all Members and the future Member for Clacton not just to enjoy our beautiful coast but to help ensure that all rubbish from day-trippers to Roker and Seaburn is properly disposed of—in the bin.
Sunderland fans will be minding the gap when they get off the Metro at the airport this summer, not just for our summer holidays but for getting carried away at Europa league fixtures, perhaps in Milan. Our first season back in the premier league was a resounding triumph, marking a huge turn in fortunes for the red and white team founded by a trade union. It just shows what can be done with the right manager, inspired recruitment and consistent hard work—yes, I am still referring to football, not the Labour party. I know the Leader of the House, my right hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth (Sir Alan Campbell), is an ardent fan of Europe, so I am sure he will join me in wishing Sunderland AFC well for the season ahead. I specifically want to mention the contribution of David Bruce, who recently departed as the club’s chief business officer. As a lifelong fan and a local lad made good, he led the commercial revitalisation of the club and crucially its reconnection with the fans, including through the return of the fantastic Hummel kits. I wish him well in his future work as chief executive of Sheffield Wednesday.
We are at the end of the school year, so I want to thank teachers, staff and students across Sunderland for their commitment this year. A deserved summer break beckons and I hope that those awaiting exam results see all their hard work reflected in them. Mrs Helen Smith has been teaching at St Anthony’s girls’ Catholic academy for more than 30 years, including as head of sixth form and leading the A-level politics programme. She has encouraged and inspired generations of Sunderland’s young people to be engaged in our democracy, whether as runners at our speedy election counts, visitors to Parliament or as talented interns and staff in my office and those of my predecessors. I thank her for that and for the significant contribution that she has made to public life in Sunderland, as I thank all teachers and staff retiring at the end of this term.
Homelessness shames us all, and I pay tribute to the Prime Minister for the priority he gave to tackling it, including through a significantly increased homeless grant allocation to Sunderland. I am, however, still deeply saddened—angry, even—that that grant has not been used by the council to prevent the recent closure of the Basis homeless drop-in centre, and that no alternative provision has been put in place. Imagine being on the streets in a heatwave or, in a few months’ time, in the middle of winter, without having a drop-in service to provide somewhere to have a shower, to get warm or to wash clothes. It is a disgrace. I pay tribute to Dave Cawley and the Basis team, and to the engagement of churches and other faith and community groups that are doing what they can to serve our homeless neighbours in the city.
All that remains is for me to wish you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and all the staff of the House a very happy summer.
Matt Vickers (Stockton West) (Con)
I start by joining the many other hon. Members who have paid tribute to Ann Widdecombe. She was a remarkable, inspiring and passionate woman, and I was honoured to welcome her to Stockton on numerous occasions. My thoughts go out to her friends and family.
One issue that is raised with me week after week is the growing scourge of off-road bikes and e-bikes. Whether it is in Bishopsgarth or Elm Tree, Ingleby Barwick or Thornaby, residents across Stockton West are fed up with feral, balaclava-clad thugs using these bikes to intimidate communities, tear through parks and footpaths, and make neighbourhoods feel unsafe. Families cannot enjoy parks, older residents feel intimidated and children cannot play safely. This is not simply anti-social behaviour —it is dangerous criminality.
I put forward amendments to legislation that would have made it easier for officers to seize vehicles, ensured that non-roadworthy bikes seized from persistent offenders were not returned and explored greater accountability around the sale of off-road bikes in the first place. Those amendments were not accepted, but the problem has not gone away; if anything, it is getting worse. I urge Ministers to look again at the issue and bring forward a comprehensive package of measures that equips police with the powers they need, tackles the supply of these machines and sends a clear message that those who use off-road bikes and e-bikes to terrorise our communities will face real consequences.
Another issue that I hear about almost every day is over-development. Across Yarm, Eaglescliffe, Middleton St George and Hartburn, residents increasingly feel that their communities are being asked to shoulder an unfair level of development without the infrastructure to support it. People understand that homes are needed and that young people want somewhere to live, but what they cannot understand is why developments continue to be approved without the roads, school places, GP capacity, drainage and local services keeping pace. Time and again, I hear from residents who feel their voices are ignored.
Development should happen with communities, not to them. The Government’s increasing housing targets risk placing more pressure on these communities. Planning should improve places, not simply gobble up the greenbelt to maximise housing numbers. I hope Ministers will continue to look at ways to strengthen the role of infra- structure in planning decisions and ensure that local communities have a meaningful voice before developments are approved.
Finally, I pay tribute to Richard Pengelly from Strangers Bar who retires today after 37 years. Richard has not just poured pints—he has poured patience, good humour and the occasional reality check for MPs of every party. The place will not be the same without him. I wish him a long and well-earned retirement, and I look forward to reading his memoirs.
Stockton West is an amazing place, with amazing people. I am proud to call it home and I am proud to represent them.
Adam Thompson (Erewash) (Lab)
It is always an honour to speak in the Adjournment debate in memory of Sir David Amess. As is traditional, I will endeavour to cram as many topics as I can into my contribution before we break for the summer recess.
I will discuss recent knife crime in Ilkeston. While it would not be appropriate for me to discuss any one individual case in detail, some incidents recently have affected my community deeply. As always, my thoughts are with those affected. I will continue to engage with the families of those involved and the wider community over the summer, as well as our local police, our police and crime commissioner, Nicolle Ndiweni-Roberts, and local councillors from across the political spectrum as we work together to make our community safer.
Let me briefly address East Midlands Railway, a service that I use regularly to travel between Erewash and London. This week, EMR has continued to operate a reduced timetable, citing the impact of recent hot weather. While extreme weather can affect rail services, passengers have faced disruption and shortcomings for years, and the hot weather is not going away. The introduction of the new Aurora fleet is very much welcome, but progress has been very slow. In the meantime, passengers are relying on the ageing class 222 Meridian trains, which lack modern amenities such as properly functional wi-fi. Passengers deserve a reliable, modern railway, and I hope the roll-out of the Aurora fleet accelerates to deliver the improvements long promised on the midland main line.
Supporting grassroots music has always mattered to me, both as a former gigging musician and as the MP for Erewash. Last summer, I spoke in this debate about the importance of protecting the small venues that give new artists their first opportunities and bring communities together through live music. Since then, I have been out and seen a stack of bands at grassroots gigs, because those venues and acts thrive only when people show up. Grassroots music is about more than entertainment; it creates jobs, strengthens our communities and gives the next generation of artists somewhere to begin their journey—and, often, it is something for young people to do. However, the problems of venue closures, poor pay for artists and high prices for tickets endures, so, to repeat my sentiment from last time: colleagues and friends, please go and see a band this summer.
I have some quick-fire points. The Big Paddle Cleanup is Paddle UK’s wonderful initiative designed to clean up our waterways, and I thank all volunteers for their work. I am really excited that Bennerley viaduct visitor centre is formally opening this week, and I very much look forward to my first coffee there. I wish a very happy anniversary to Manor fish bar in Ilkeston, which is currently celebrating 20 years of fantastic chips. Treetops hospice in Risley is an amazing local charity that provides hospice at-home support for thousands of Derbyshire families using its innovative provision model, and I hope to engage with the Health Secretary after recess to discuss that model.
Let me give a shout-out to my barber, Ev Swift, who is essentially a core member of my team at this point. He is always there to put a smile on my face, and he is far more famous on Instagram than I am, so do give him a follow—my guy is hilarious. I give an invitation to all Members: they are very welcome to join me for a creamy pint this summer in the Sawley Junction, the Burnt Pig or the Hoptimist over recess. I have one more point: may I beg Reform on Derbyshire county council to sort out the potholes? They are a right state.
I am sure that every Member across the House values the contribution of their own teams; we have heard from various colleagues about them and all the work that they do. I put on record my thanks to my incredible team. To Becca, Curtis, Harrison, Hollie, Jude, Robert, Ruby and Vikki, I express my very sincere thanks for everything that you do. Similarly, I thank my colleagues on Erewash borough council; James Dawson and our mayor, Greg Maskalick, are doing wonderful work.
I have covered as many topics as I can this afternoon— I have several further discarded pages that I would have raised had I had the time. As we head into this recess, I thank again my team, my colleagues on the council, all the staff in the House—particularly those retiring this summer—and everyone who works so hard behind the scenes to keep this place running. I wish all Members a restful and wonderful summer, and I look forward to returning in September to continue making the case for Erewash. Happy recess, Madam Deputy Speaker.
Steve Barclay (North East Cambridgeshire) (Con)
Labour Members will recall the political pain that I am sure many of them faced when the winter fuel proposal was announced. It was put forward to save around £1.3 billion to £1.5 billion a year. They will also recall the angst, the ministerial resignations and the delay that occurred around the defence investment plan, which cost about £15 billion, less than half of which is actually new money—about £6.9 billion. It is very surprising that the Government propose to spend more on this building and this estate than they are spending on the defence investment plan. As a deposit, they are planning to spend more than half of what was put forward as a saving on winter fuel. If colleagues are surprised to hear that, I can tell them that of the four options being brought forward, even the cheapest is more than £10 billion. In a nice sleight of hand, though, all the works on the northern estate—which are essential to the restoration and renewal programme—are excluded. That is more than a further £5 billion over the next 10 years, and that is excluding the half a billion we have spent over the past five years just on preparatory work, before building anything.
After spending half a billion on preparatory work, the National Audit Office said last month that the £3 billion that is being brought forward is to allow the programme to progress from four options to two. When the legislation was passed, it was with one option; after seven years and half a billion pounds, we have gone from one option to four, and it is now proposed to spend a further £3 billion to go from four options to two. As the headline figure is so large, however, the proposal is to commit £3 billion, but to lock in the next Parliament so that, in essence, it has no choice but to sign off a figure that this Parliament knows it will be highly reluctant to sign off.
All of this is being done with no debate in this House, despite more than half the Parliament being new Members. This is not a new issue—I raised this point in the exact same debate last year, the Sir David Amess debate, and have raised it multiple times in the House. There has been no debate about these gigantic figures, despite the level of debate we have on other topics. The Government might say that this is a parliamentary matter, but it is not; it is the Government who will provide the money, and it is the Government who have the majority in the House.
This is happening because, bluntly, there has been a breakdown in trust between officials—who are deeply frustrated with Members and peers because they feel that we have not set a clear budget or a clear timeline, and that the goalposts are being moved regarding the options—and Members and peers, who are frustrated because they feel that officials are not responding to concerns. In 2021, the Leader of the House said that this scheme was massively gold-plated, but the trade-offs are still not being addressed. Let me give just one example—that of the Lords roof. Although the Finance Committee does not cover R&R, we had a proposal this week on the Lords roof, which is work outside of R&R. An extra £1 million of costs was being incurred just because the Lords would not agree to finish at 10.30 pm. When I put that to Members of the Lords, they were completely unaware of that figure.
I am almost out of time, but the point I want to make to the House is that these are huge numbers, and it is ridiculous that there has been so little transparency and debate. R&R is going to be a national scandal; I keep raising it, but nothing is changing. It is time that we had a debate in this House, made this issue transparent and brought some clarity to it, including a defined budget and a time limit, which I would set as one Parliament.
Sarah Owen (Luton North) (Lab)
As this debate is always oversubscribed—a fitting tribute to Sir David that I am sure he would have been proud of—I am going to keep my remarks short.
I love Luton. It is my home, and my favourite part of my job is working with our wonderful, diverse, welcoming community. I have been proud to push forward the new play park in Stopsley alongside Sandra and Mike Stratford, Cherry Newbury, and the one and only Karen Cockfield. With spades now in the ground, this Government’s Pride in Place programme is funding a fire engine-themed playground extension for younger children as well. It is a true community campaign—a Labour MP working alongside a Labour council, funded by a Labour Government and powered by local people. In Marsh Farm, local residents will direct £20 million over the next decade through our Pride in Place neighbourhood board, led by our fantastic new chair Jackie Neufville. I visit businesses every week, and do a small business Saturday shout-out every weekend. I see businesses such as Crafty As Fk, run by Claire Lydon; Sensory5, opened by the passionate Kasey Foy; Hina Sohrab providing IT services globally from her home in Luton North; and the amazing Grand Bazar supermarket, which has celebrated its one-year anniversary, an event that I was honoured to mark alongside our Labour mayor Javed Hussain.
I love visiting schools. In the past few weeks, I have joined students bricklaying at Stopsley High with their wonderful head Karen Hand, after linking them up with local business Goodman to supply bricks for its courses. I have awarded amazing students at Putteridge High alongside their committed head, David Graham, and I have said goodbye to the truly brilliant Sandra Clarke, who retires from Woodlands High this week.
The love, care and community you feel when you walk into that school are amazing. While she will be greatly missed, she deserves a very happy retirement.
In Luton North, we have so many great people doing amazing things, whether that is Paul Prior opening up a veterans hub at the Leagrave and Limbury British Legion, Michelle Boldeau running a half marathon—rather her than me—to support the hospital’s charity, or Rose at the Ameina Centre, who welcomed me to meet amazing groups, such as Att10tive and Shanthona Women’s Group. That is not the sum of everything happening in Luton North—and I could go on for 30 minutes, rather than three—but I want to put those achievements on record. We are a strong, united, diverse part of the world, and long may that continue.
Just like many others, I wish everybody here a fantastic summer, and I thank those members of the parliamentary staff who are retiring—people like Richard, Margaret and Godfrey. I want to say a massive thank you to them not just for keeping us fed and looked after, but for their continued friendship, especially Godfrey, who has been extremely kind to my little one throughout the years.
I want to say a massive thank you to my team. I could not do this without them and they serve the people of Luton North in such a brilliant, committed manner— I could not ask for more.
Rachel Taylor (North Warwickshire and Bedworth) (Lab)
First, may I thank all the House staff, particularly those leaving us this year, and pay tribute to my wonderful team? I could not do this job without them and the work they do for my constituents in North Warwickshire and Bedworth.
Sir David was known throughout this House for the pride he took in his constituency. I have always believed that sport has an extraordinary ability to bring people together, never more than when we watch our national team together. As someone who has played tennis throughout my life and become a Wimbledon tennis umpire, I know that sport gives us so much more than benefits to our physical health—although I am beginning to question those physical health benefits after sustaining a broken rib playing for the cross-party parliamentary team!
Sport gives us confidence, friendships and the opportunity to meet people outside of our everyday lives. For many people, it just gives us a reason to get out of bed and to get outdoors. That is what I see every time I visit the fantastic grassroots sports clubs in North Warwickshire and Bedworth. They are places where young people build confidence, where volunteers give countless hours to their communities, and where people of all ages and backgrounds come together around a shared passion.
Earlier this year, I was delighted to visit Bedworth rugby club and support it in its ambition to install new floodlights. At Atherstone cricket club, I was pleased to attend the Martin Plackett memorial match, which every year raises vital funds for cancer research. I had the chance to join the fantastic ladies team in the nets—and they told me to stick to the tennis! I enjoyed my visit to the bowls club at Water Orton, and I can assure the House that crown green bowls is much harder than it looks. It was a joy to return to the Grove and see the local ladies darts league thriving; Margaret and the other volunteers do a wonderful job. The bowls team there are also a force to be reckoned with, and so many young people are taking up the sport.
Coleshill tennis club was a real lifeline for me during covid, and the Adders hockey team, where I played for a few seasons, have so many dedicated volunteers, including Mick and Jill Thomas, and thriving junior, men’s and ladies’ teams. Sport is so much a part of village life in so many of the villages in my constituency, from Fillongley to Newton Regis, from Corley to Austrey and from Warton to Polesworth, with its fantastic annual Office Abbott run, to name just a few.
I cannot talk about sport and physical activity without mentioning the two wonderful parkruns in my constituency: the rather hilly Bedworth parkrun in the Miners’ Welfare Park and the picturesque Kingsbury Water parkrun, both of which I have run in and volunteered at. I also cannot talk about sport in my constituency without mentioning the three fantastic non-league football clubs: Atherstone Town community football club, known as the Adders, who nearly clinched promotion this season. I watched the nail-biting match in Coventry, which was wonderful. I also need to mention Bedworth United and Coleshill Town. I have also supported them and watched their matches this season.
It was great to welcome young people from Polesworth school and Nicholas Chamberlaine school to Parliament this year to talk about the barriers to them getting involved in sport. I joined the Activity Alliance recently at the junior para swimming championships. I know that I have seen the Paralympians of the future.
As we remember Sir David Amess today, I would also like to talk about our late colleague Jo Cox. She reminded us that
“we are far more united and have far more in common than that which divides us.”—[Official Report, 3 June 2015; Vol. 596, c. 675.]
It was an honour to join Jo’s sister, my hon. Friend the Member for Spen Valley (Kim Leadbeater), together with her parents Jean and Gordon to run the 10th and last Run for Jo last month. Grassroots sport demonstrates the truth of Jo’s words every single week at the many brilliant sports clubs across North Warwickshire and Bedworth.
I thank the House for listening to me, and I thank in particular all those whose volunteer in community sport: they make North Warwickshire and Bedworth and our country a better place.
Alison Taylor (Paisley and Renfrewshire North) (Lab)
I did not have the privilege of meeting Sir David Amess, but I do remember the sense of shock across the country at his murder. He was clearly a man of deep convictions and determination to serve his country and his constituents. My heart goes out to his family and all those who knew him. They are in my thoughts and prayers today.
As our neighbours across the Atlantic are reflecting on the 250th anniversary of their nation, I am reminded of America’s great leader Abraham Lincoln and his words at Gettysburg, where he described those who died fighting in the civil war as having given their
“last full measure of devotion”.
It seems fitting that the same description can be applied to Sir David, and to Jo Cox before him: they gave their last full measure of devotion. They gave everything they had to their constituency and their country. It falls to us to honour their loss and to rededicate ourselves to the service of our country.
Like other hon. Members, I was deeply shocked to learn of the murder of the former Member Ann Widdecombe. When I was a newly elected MP, a constituent came to me with an issue that led me to contact Ann; she was incredibly kind and generous with her time. I record my deepest condolences to her family and friends.
Serving my constituents of Paisley and Renfrewshire North is the greatest privilege of my life. I am grateful to Mr Speaker for all that he has done to help us do our work safely.
For several years, I have served on the Labour-led Glasgow commission, exploring barriers and opportunities for the Greater Glasgow region. One inescapable conclusion from that work is the need for strategic, ambitious planning in transport, infrastructure and culture. I look at what has been achieved in Manchester as an illustration of what can be done with ambition and positivity. For example, Manchester is well served with an integrated transport network. My constituents can take a train to Manchester airport—they can even take a train to the less frequented Prestwick airport—but they cannot take a train to Glasgow airport, hampering access for both travellers and workers. Bus franchising has transformed commuting and leisure travel across Manchester, while Glasgow—one of the first places to have an underground system—has seen no expansion of that network and little thought on integrated transport.
My constituency includes Glasgow airport, and significant industrial and high-tech manufacturing, which is constrained not by its ambition but by the lack of ambition for two decades of an SNP-controlled Scottish Government. Following the publication of the strategic defence review, I will be convening a roundtable with defence-related businesses in my constituency to explore how, together, we can play a part in the challenges ahead.
For members still planning a holiday, may I highlight some of the delights of Paisley, Glasgow and Renfrewshire, all of which I represent a part of? A Renfrewshire museum holds one of only a handful of copies of the beautifully illustrated “Audubon’s Birds of America”. Previous important visitors to Paisley include John Witherspoon, the only clergyman to sign the US declaration of independence, and former President Ronald Reagan, who had roots in the area. In fact, American influence radiates across Renfrewshire, which hosts a nine acre indoor leisure and entertainment zone at Braehead. We also have the Grid, which is aimed at children of all ages.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
Members will have seen that we are a bit pressed for time, so after this speech I will be reducing the time limit to three minutes.
Ms Julie Minns (Carlisle) (Lab)
One of the things that Sir David understood well is that the best causes we take up as parliamentarians begin not in Westminster but in our constituencies. Like the hon. Member for Stockton West (Matt Vickers), I have had many constituents come to me worried about the growing presence of illegal e-bikes on our streets. Older residents are anxious about their safety, local businesses raise concerns about dangerous, modified e-bikes, and Carlisle’s police officers highlight a worrying trend linking illegal e-bikes to wider criminal activity. That is why, at the beginning of the year, I introduced a ten-minute rule Bill to ban the sale of illegal e-bikes and the kits that create them.
Since then, with thanks to Maisie Stewart and Clark Becken in my team, I have had the privilege of meeting manufacturers, retailers, charities, the bicycle and motorcycle industries, and police and community groups, not just in Carlisle but well beyond. The more evidence I have gathered, the more convinced I have become that action is urgently needed to tackle what is a national problem.
Perhaps the most striking conversation I had was with local schoolchildren when I visited Newlaithes school in May. Pupils raised concerns with me about illegal e-bikes being ridden through Chances Park. They spoke eloquently and with conviction about the dangers posed to them, their friends and their families when they simply want to use their local park. There is something powerful about the fact that primary school children have recognised a problem that we as lawmakers have yet to address.
I would like to be clear: the issue is not e-bikes. It is illegal e-bikes. There is a reason why there is a tight legal definition of an e-bike: because vehicles that are capable of power and speed outside the legal parameters are simply not safe without proper checks, registration and licensing. The police understand the problem all too well. Cumbria’s police, fire and crime commissioner David Allen has been working with me and commissioners throughout the country, backing my call for a ban because, time and again, when the thread of illegal e-bikes is pulled, wider criminal networks unravel, with issues of illegal working, drug dealing and robbery exposed.
On a positive note, I have been delighted to spend time visiting and speaking with some of the amazing legitimate cycle businesses and organisations in my constituency, including Rebike Cumbria, which refurbishes bikes, helping people on low incomes to enjoy the physical and mental health benefits of cycling. The company also provides jobs, training and volunteering opportunities in my community.
Illegal e-bikes also raise fire risks. I heard earlier this week that there has been a nearly 150% increase in house fires of because of lithium ion batteries. A terrifying majority of those fires have been linked to illegal e-bikes.
Taken together, the issues demonstrate that this is not simply a transport matter. It is about public safety, crime, antisocial behaviour, consumer protection and business, and—most importantly for all of us—it is about our communities.
Next year, the Tour de France comes not just to Britain but to my constituency of Carlisle. I want to ensure that the tour is a celebration of cycling—good, legal cycling—and I want part of that celebration to be a ban on the dodgy, dangerous, illegal e-bikes that threaten our local communities.
Josh Newbury (Cannock Chase) (Lab)
Like many colleagues who have spoken, I pay tribute to Sir David Amess.
Today, I make a speech that I never thought I would have to make, to pay tribute to a good friend, Councillor Shanika Mahendran, who passed away on 1 July at the age of just 28. I met Shanika in 2022 on the Next Generation programme run by the Local Government Association’s Labour group. Although I wondered why I was among such an incredibly talented cohort, it was plain to see why Shanika was. Despite being a relatively new councillor, she was clearly destined for an outstanding career in local government, and anything that she put her mind to. She was particularly passionate about planning, placemaking and her beloved home city of Milton Keynes.
As a young woman of colour in politics, Shanika faced condescension and sexism that no one should, particularly given that she was outstanding in all the roles she held. Despite that, Shanika carried a lot of self-doubt, but one of the joys of knowing her was seeing her confidence gradually blossom into a realisation of the enormous contribution she made. That is why we were devastated to hear, towards the end of June, that Shanika had been diagnosed with a rare and aggressive brain tumour. Such is the cruel speed at which this condition can move that Shanika was with us for just one week after we heard that news.
I do not think that Shanika’s loss has really sunk in yet, but I wanted to make this speech because, above all, she was someone who believed in doing things, not just saying things. I hope that sharing her story can shine a light on the experience of thousands of others.
Brain tumours remain the biggest cancer killer of children and adults under 40, yet fewer than 13% of adults diagnosed with a high-grade tumour will survive beyond five years, and the condition accounts for just 3.2% of national cancer research funding. There are more than 120 types of brain and central nervous system tumours, making them particularly difficult to identify quickly. The Brain Tumour Charity found that 41% of patients visited their GP three or more times before receiving a diagnosis. I welcome the Government’s commitment to improve outcomes through the national cancer plan, including by investing in the national Brain Tumour Research Consortium. Researchers are developing new approaches, from immunotherapies to personalised medicine, but many promising breakthroughs have yet to reach the bedside and we need to do more to support that. In Shanika’s memory, we can back earlier diagnosis and more research to ensure that every patient has access to the best possible care.
Before I completely go to pieces, I will finish with a few words from a poem by David Harkins that was sent around our Next Generation cohort by Councillor Lorna Fielker:
“You can shed tears that she is gone,
Or you can smile because she has lived.
You can close your eyes and pray that she will come back,
Or you can open your eyes and see all that she has left”.
John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)
Four years ago, we welcomed many new residents into a number of new homes in my constituency. Despite saving up, getting themselves on the property ladder and paying anything between £300,000 and £500,000 for brand-new leasehold properties, those living at the Bluenote apartments have found themselves living in a nightmare. Bellway Homes was the developer, and Bellway-appointed directors control the residents’ management company.
When the residents moved in, they found that the boiler was not fit for purpose and they regularly went without any hot water or heating for days. The car park gates were constantly breaking down and trapping vehicles inside the car park. The patio slabs were uneven and dangerous, leading to injury, and there were leaks from the roof into individual apartments. Very quickly, service charge bills far exceeded the estimates provided by Bellway, and Bellway and its directors refused to engage.
Four years on, the scale of the problems has grown. Over £100,000 of residents’ funds remain unaccounted for, including money from the heat supply and reserve funds. Service charge demands have doubled in four years, and residents have been charged for fixing defects for which the developer is responsible. Residents have been refused basic financial information, including the end-of-year accounts, receipts and invoices that they are entitled to see under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, even though they have gone through every appropriate route. The dangerous patio slabs remain.
Bellway has refused to transfer the freehold to leasehold, even though it is contractually obliged to do so. It has allowed the property management companies— Premier Block Management and Gateway Property Management —to act with impunity in sending out grossly inflated and incorrect service demands, and it has put my constituents under intense pressure to take over the property management companies and expose themselves to significant personal liabilities.
Bellway has been able to get away with this because it controls the management, has control of the freehold and has the resources to bully my constituents, including by instructing top law firms to send them threatening letters. All I am doing is calling on Bellway to be transparent about the building’s finances, to resolve the outstanding issues and the physical problems that the residents are facing, and to transfer the freehold, as it is contractually and morally obliged to do.
I welcome the Government’s draft leasehold reform Bill. However, this case exemplifies the fact that the Bill needs to be much more robust, particularly in relation to service charges and the management transfer process. I do not want to experience this again with other constituents. As I have said, the residents have gone through a living nightmare because of the unaccountability of this development and the management company.
Amanda Martin (Portsmouth North) (Lab)
Sir David Amess understood what every Member of this House should remember: our greatest privilege is representing the people and places who send us here. He never missed an opportunity to celebrate Southend, and today I want to do the same for Portsmouth. This year is especially meaningful, because we are celebrating 100 years of city status.
For a century our city has been shaped by courage, service, resilience and innovation. Portsmouth has defended our nation, openly welcomed people from around the world, built ships, driven industry and produced generations who have been fiercely proud to call themselves Pompey. Throughout this centenary year, our city has come together to celebrate, but Portsmouth 100 is about more than looking back; it is about recognising the people who make our city.
Reading through the nominations for the 100 Pompey Belles award, recognising 100 local women, has been inspiring and humbling. They tell the stories of the extraordinary women who quietly make Portsmouth a better place every single day. The hardest part now lies ahead, because we have the impossible task of narrowing down these nominations to just 100.
I have learned over the past two years that Portsmouth sometimes has a habit of talking about itself as though it ends at the guildhall. I have therefore made it my mission since being elected to remind everyone that there is another half of Portsmouth that is every bit as special, which is Portsmouth North. It is where so many of my own memories were made: the street parties on Mousehole Road; rolling down Portsdown hill, which I must confess I have done rather more recently than perhaps I should have; spending long summer days sitting on the concrete steps at Hilsea lido, and how wonderful to see this much-loved landmark restored for future generations to make memories, too; catching the bus as a kid into North End to go shopping, before treating ourselves to a burger at Uncle Sams; play dates with mates in the ball pit at the Sovereigns, and later on in the garden of the Rose in June; family picnics at Baffins park after a visit; and going shopping with my Nan in Cosham, or as my Aunty Irene likes to call it, “Cozam”. These moments may seem ordinary, but they are what makes a city extraordinary. As we celebrate 100 years, I want to encourage residents to follow the lion trail, which takes them to so many gems in my city, and to make their own memories.
What next for year 101, and what will I strive to change? I will strive for building the homes that local families need, giving every child the opportunity to achieve and thrive, supporting our high streets, protecting our coastlines, backing our armed forces, speaking out for those who often do not feel they have a voice, and making sure every generation can build a good life in my city—the city that I and they love.
I want to thank my family and my loved ones for their support, and my fantastic team of Harry, Helen, Lucy, Abbie, Matthew, Jemma, Oscar and Flora—who, with her partner, Neil, welcomed their beautiful baby boy, Sacha Henry, just two weeks ago. Before I finish, I want to pay tribute to our outgoing Prime Minister, and to thank him for his service to our country, and for his kindness, encouragement and friendship. I also want to warmly welcome our new Prime Minister. Around Greater Manchester, he is known as the king of the north. I gently remind him that there is another north that deserves attention, and that is Portsmouth North.
David Pinto-Duschinsky (Hendon) (Lab)
This debate is named for Sir David Amess, and I think it is an important chance to honour the values of unity, community and tolerance that both Sir David and our much-missed colleague Jo Cox stood for so strongly. I also want to echo hon. Members in commemorating Ann Widdecombe, which is why I want to use this speech to briefly highlight an appalling hatred that is spreading and urge this House to unite in action against it.
Like many in this House, I was appalled to hear of the terrorist plot against the Ijtima festival, and I am grateful to the police for their rapid action. As the Home Secretary has said, their decisive enforcement undoubtedly saved lives. That Muslims were targeted is despicable, but it is not, unfortunately, unusual. Just yesterday, an individual was charged with plotting attacks on multiple mosques. Anti-Muslim hate crimes are now at record levels. British Muslims, including my friends and neighbours in Hendon, are regularly subjected to a barrage of abuse, vilification and even violence. This hate is becoming normalised online, on our streets and, shamefully, by some Members of this House. We have seen mosques attacked in Peacehaven and other places, and in Edinburgh we saw where this all leads, with Muslims viciously attacked for no other reason than that they are Muslim. Let us be clear: these attacks are an affront to all we hold dear as a country. This hatred is an assault on British values, and it is the job of all of us to confront it and to defeat it wherever it is found.
In Hendon, we are blessed with a vibrant Muslim community and strong community institutions, including a number of mosques. They contribute so much to our area, but they are understandably worried. I welcome the action that the Government are taking to protect our Muslim community. Continuing action is essential so that our Muslim citizens can live free and safe as they practise their faith and go about their daily lives. That means continuing to take measures such as investing in protecting our Muslim community. It also means tackling the root causes of anti-Muslim hatred and the language and attitudes that allow it to spread, including in this House. I hope that is a cause we can all get behind. As we go into recess, I can think of no better way to honour the tolerance and British values that Sir David stood for.
I would like to finish by wishing every Member of the House a very happy summer recess, and by thanking our brilliant staff, particularly Godfrey, Margaret and Richard, for all they do.
Pam Cox (Colchester) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to contribute to this debate in memory of Sir David Amess. Sir David, as we have heard, was a tireless advocate for his Southend constituency, so I felt it was fitting to focus on an issue —the role of the University of Essex—that connects Southend with my own constituency of Colchester.
Like fellow Essex MPs, I have been very concerned about the impact of the decision to close the university’s Southend campus. Southend city centre has benefited enormously from having a university presence. I remember growing up there, so I understand the difference that presence would have made at that time. The loss of that presence is already being felt keenly by residents, staff and students. The university has said that it has taken the decision with great reluctance in response to the significant financial pressures facing the wider higher education sector. It has confirmed that its teaching will be consolidated in Colchester, although it also confirmed job losses at that campus.
As a former colleague to many staff there, my thoughts, and I am sure those across the House, are with those suffering right now as they face a very uncertain summer. They have been robustly supported by their trade unions, the University and College Union and Unison, over the past year. They are right to continue to raise concerns about jobs, workloads and the long-term sustainability of our universities. They have my support and that of the MPs who represent Southend—I am nodding to my hon. Friends in the Chamber behind me.
At a time when higher education across the country faces major challenges, I am very pleased to see that Universities UK is continuing its “Future Universities” initiative, urgently exploring how the sector can better support jobs, innovation, communities and students. The message is clear: our universities are central to the economic and social prosperity of our country. I hope that they are very high on the priority list of our new Prime Minister. In Colchester, we see that value every day.
The University of Essex supports thousands of jobs, encourages investment and enriches our cultural life. It is a source of enormous local pride. We can see that very clearly right now through the many joyous graduation ceremonies that will be happening over the next fortnight. I wish all our new graduates well, and I wish everybody in the House—colleagues, staff, friends and my own team —all the best for a very restful summer.
Mr Bayo Alaba (Southend East and Rochford) (Lab)
I am deeply honoured to have the opportunity to speak in the Sir David Amess debate. Sir David’s life was defined by public service, including the 24 years he spent representing the constituency of Southend West. Indeed, it was in Sir David’s memory that Southend was granted city status in 2022.
That passion for our stretch of south-east Essex coastline is something I share, and something that makes sense when we consider what it has to offer. From Wallasea Island and Shoebury east beach to Southend pier and the Kursaal, there is plenty to shout about along our shores. Yet although the coast is crucial to Southend East and Rochford’s character, it also poses its own unique set of challenges. Bordered by water on three sides, we are physically isolated, an obstacle compounded by a single century-old link road and our location at the end of the railway line. I regularly hear from local residents, business owners and farmers about the impact that regular cases of standstill traffic has on their daily life and work. The cost of that, however, is felt most acutely by our young people. Teenagers in coastal areas like ours suffer worse adult health than their inland counterparts, achieve below-average GCSE results in maths and English, and go on to earn lower wages.
There is, however, good reason to be hopeful. Southend is one of the country’s fastest-growing seaside resorts, with more than 7 million visitors choosing the city for their seaside day trips each year. That is unsurprising when you consider the regeneration efforts of recent years, which I have been proud to play a part in. It is a particular pleasure to see the steps being taken to return our iconic Kursaal to public use.
Coastal communities are also beginning to feel the benefit of the turning economic tides generated by this Labour Government. The promise of local government reorganisation and devolution is also set to pave the way for greater community control of spending. In Southend and Rochford district, we know what the solutions to our problems are. We know how to unlock the huge potential for growth that exists along our coast, and in our towns and in our rural areas.We recognise the impact that a new link road would offer, and the opportunities that would be created by improved access to high-tech skills training. That is why I am proud to be reigniting the mission to secure a new link road into south-east Essex, and why I am working to attract new industries and investment into our area.
As I believe Sir David Amess understood, the success of south-east Essex is defined by our spirit of hard work and self-improvement. If our communities are given the tools to succeed, I have no doubt that we can achieve incredible things.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
Clive Jones (Wokingham) (LD)
I want to raise a concern on behalf of my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford West and Abingdon (Layla Moran). I understand that a number of MPs were not invited to a call this morning outlining the impact of local government reorganisation. I hope that the Leader of the House agrees that that was unacceptable.
Today I wish to celebrate the life of Sir David Amess. Following the untimely death of the former MP Ann Widdecombe, it is appropriate to use this debate to talk about Sir David and how he conducted himself in Parliament. I did not know him personally, but I felt that I did through the television. I remember his result being announced in the early hours after the 1983 general election and seeing him many times on TV in the years that followed.
Sir David was renowned for his tireless campaigning on issues ranging from animal welfare to tackling fuel poverty. He was also a passionate advocate for children with learning disabilities. He championed women with endometriosis by launching an all-party parliamentary group. He spent years campaigning for Southend to be granted city status, which was achieved in 2022.
Sir David’s commitment to public service earned admiration from colleagues across the House. Following his death, the then Prime Minister, Boris Johnson, described Sir David as,
“one of the nicest, kindest and most gentle individuals ever to grace these Benches… our politics needs people like Sir David: dedicated, passionate, firm in his beliefs but never anything less than respectful for those who thought differently.” —[Official Report, 18 October 2021; Vol. 701, c. 554.]
The then Leader of the Opposition, the right hon. and learned Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer), echoed those sentiments, urging us to
“use the memory of Sir David’s life…to recommit ourselves in standing for the things that he stood for…for decency in our disagreements, for kindness in our hearts, for our great democracy”. —[Official Report, 18 October 2021; Vol. 701, c. 556.]
That message is as important today as it was then.
In an increasingly divisive political climate, we must remember that disagreements should never come at the expense of respect. Over recent years, particularly during the Brexit debate, political discourse has become more hostile. The populist politics of misleading narratives have often deepened division, rather than encouraged understanding. Social media has also transformed political debate; while it has created opportunities for engagement, it has also enabled anonymous abuse, threats against public representatives, and the rapid spread of misinformation. Such behaviour fuels hostility and weakens trust in our democratic institutions.
There is perhaps no greater symbol of that than the murder of Jo Cox in 2016. Her killer brought political violence into sharp focus and demonstrated how extremist ideologies can erupt in an increasingly toxic atmosphere. Tragically, Sir David Amess also became a victim of political violence. In 2021, he was murdered while holding a constituency surgery, doing something he had done so many times: helping his constituents—something he was well known for and that many Members do on a regular basis. Sir David’s killer targeted him because of his parliamentary record. This tragedy reminds us that extremism can take many forms, but its goal is always the same: to intimate, divide and undermine our democracy.
We must do everything we can to ensure that what happened to Jo Cox and Sir David Amess never happens again, and that elected representatives at every level can serve their communities safely and without fear. We should also remember that the members of staff and volunteers who support MPs also share the risk that public service can bring. I think of Andrew Pennington, who was killed in 2000 defending the Liberal Democrat MP for Cheltenham at a constituency surgery.
We need more people in Parliament who conduct themselves as Sir David Amess did. The greatest tribute that we can pay to Sir David is to uphold the values he embodied: kindness, respect, public service and a belief that political differences should never diminish our common humanity. It is sad that these values no longer appear to be held by all political parties.
John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con)
It is a great pleasure to close the Sir David Amess Adjournment debate on behalf of the Opposition, in which we have heard a great many excellent contributions from across the Chamber. Of course, this is a time to remember Sir David himself, who always made sure that the people of Southend were put firmly on the map during this debate. I will always remember his warmth, conviction and generosity when I was first elected to this House in 2017. He was a tireless advocate for the people he represented and for the causes he championed.
I join right hon. and hon. Members in paying tribute to Ann Widdecombe, who was a woman of great conviction and always said what she thought. You might not have completely agreed with her, but you always knew where she stood. The way in which her life was cut short last week in such horrific circumstances is truly heartbreaking, and my thoughts are with her family, her friends and everyone who knew and loved her.
I also pay tribute to the members of the staff who are leaving the House of Commons this summer, including Godfrey from the Tea Room; Richard, after 37 years in the Strangers Bar; Francelise and Denis, after 25 years and almost 27 years respectively at the Members’ Restaurant; and many others who have served this House diligently for many years.
A number of Members have highlighted some of the great attractions in their respective constituencies today, such as the putting greens in Fife that the hon. Member for North East Fife (Wendy Chamberlain) mentioned, the air show in Sunderland that the hon. Member for Sunderland Central (Lewis Atkinson) mentioned, or the entertainment zone at Braehead that the hon. Member for Paisley and Renfrewshire North (Alison Taylor) mentioned. Lastly, I am looking forward to visiting the green belt mentioned by my right hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Wendy Morton).
The summer is a wonderful time to visit the Scottish Borders. Members do not need to take my word for it; only a few weeks ago Jeremy Clarkson described the Scottish Borders as Britain’s “most beautiful” region. If Members are looking for a last-minute staycation this summer, they know where to come.
One of the highlights of my year remains my annual summer surgery tour, which starts on Saturday, on which I will hold more than 80 advice surgeries in every town and village across my Scottish Borders constituency. This is in addition to my regular monthly surgeries, and gives me an opportunity to visit every town, village and community, particularly those in the more remote and isolated parts of my constituency. I will once again be holding this tour alongside my Scottish Conservative colleague Rachael Hamilton MSP, who was overwhelmingly re-elected to represent the Scottish Borders back in May. There are still appointments available, so I encourage any of my constituents who would like to meet in the coming days or weeks to get in touch.
It has been a busy year. I have continued to campaign for better public transport links for the Borders, in particular to extend the Borders railway from Tweedbank to Hawick, Newcastleton and on to Carlisle, and to restore direct LNER services that have been cut from Berwick-upon-Tweed to London, which are so vital for keeping the Borders and north Northumberland connected.
My constituency is, of course, a borderlands community. We regularly cross the border to shop, visit friends and family, get to work or enjoy the beautiful Northumberland coastline. However, access to NHS services for cross-border communities remains a significant challenge. My view is simple: my constituents should be able to access healthcare as close to home as possible, even if that hospital or facility happens to be in England. It is only common sense that taxpayers, who fund our NHS, should be able to use the services that best meet their needs. I will continue to campaign alongside local residents to ensure that access to NHS care is quick and easily available to everybody who needs it.
We have heard some excellent contributions from Members across the Chamber, and I want to mention some of them. The hon. Member for Stirling and Strathallan (Chris Kane) mentioned the red telephone box in Balfron, which has been used as a food exchange. That is a great example of the redeployment of the red phone box network, and I know of several examples in my constituency. I congratulate the residents in Balfron on securing that.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Goole and Pocklington (David Davis) highlighted some of the big questions regarding the Peter Murrell scandal and the problems circulating around the SNP just now. He rightly asked those questions, because many people in Scotland are asking them and calling for a full inquiry into who knew what and when—particularly former First Minister Ms Sturgeon.
The hon. Member for Warrington South (Sarah Hall) and my hon. Friend the Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Dr Spencer) both raised very difficult and tragic cases. My thoughts are with the family of Lucy. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Warrington South for raising that challenging and difficult case. My hon. Friend the Member for Runnymede and Weybridge raised an important point about fraudulent paternity testing. I hope that the relevant Minister will take that forward.
My hon. Friend the Member for Stockton West (Matt Vickers) raised the important issue of off-road bikes in Stockton. I know that it is an issue for many communities. The hon. Member for Carlisle (Ms Minns) raised a similar issue in respect of e-bikes.
My right hon. Friend the Member for North East Cambridgeshire (Steve Barclay) raised concerns about the ongoing, increasing costs associated with the restoration and renewal project. I know that many Members share those concerns. It is imperative that the new Government make time for a debate on it so that the relatively newly elected Members from the 2024 election have an opportunity to have their say. Ultimately, we are dealing with huge amounts of taxpayers money, and we need to have an open and frank discussion about it.
The hon. Member for North Warwickshire and Bedworth (Rachel Taylor), who is not in her place, raised the importance of sport, with which I wholly agree. She also highlighted the risk of taking part in parliamentary sports activities, given that sharp elbows seem to have given her a broken rib—a lesson for us all, perhaps.
The hon. Member for Cannock Chase (Josh Newbury) gave a very moving tribute to one of his late council colleagues. I am grateful to him for highlighting that serious condition and what people suffering from brain tumours have to deal with.
I have not been able to mention everybody, but I am grateful to all right hon. and hon. Members who have taken time to raise the issues affecting their constituencies. However, we should have had this debate next week, once the right hon. Member for Makerfield (Andy Burnham) had assumed the office of Prime Minister, so that he could come to the House to explain what he plans to do with the country. As things stand, we have little idea what he intends to do. The right hon. Member did not publish a manifesto during the Labour leadership election. He has not yet been tested. For many years, he has made countless promises without having to deliver them, but soon he will have to do so.
The right hon. Member for Makerfield said that WASPI women should receive compensation, but we hear now that he has changed his mind. What are his plans for taxation? Which taxes does he plan to increase? He has said that he will “take his responsibilities fully” to fund the defence investment plan after the Prime Minister and Chancellor left a £4.7 billion black hole. How does he intend to pay for it? What is his plan to tackle the out-of-control welfare spending? All of our constituents deserve answers to those questions. The new Prime Minister should have come to this House early next week to answer those basic questions. Instead, he has bottled it.
Yesterday, the Opposition planned to move a motion to delay the parliamentary recess until Monday so that the incoming Government could face proper scrutiny and to allow the nation to hear from the new Prime Minister about his plans. Instead, the Leader of the House—presumably acting as proxy for the incoming Prime Minister—came to the House and blocked the motion. I sincerely hope that the Leader of the House believes that his actions were worth it—or perhaps he will be rewarded with a plum job in the reshuffle. I, for one, hope that he will continue in his current job because I think that he has been an exceptional Leader of the House.
As I close, may I thank my amazing constituency team, who have worked hard for me since my election to this place in 2017, and some who have suffered even longer, since 2007, when I first became a Member of the Scottish Parliament? I thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, Mr Speaker and his office and the other Deputy Speakers. I also thank everyone who supports the Speaker’s Office throughout the parliamentary year. The Doorkeepers, Clerks, caterers, security staff, cleaners and Members’ parliamentary and constituency staff all work tirelessly to keep this place running every single day, and I am sure that Members across the House will join me in expressing our sincere gratitude for everything they do.
I wish colleagues from across the Chamber a restful and enjoyable summer recess. I know that for many of us, it will be time spent working in our constituencies. I look forward to seeing everybody in September.
The Leader of the House of Commons (Sir Alan Campbell)
It is a pleasure to close this debate, and I thank all hon. and right hon. Members who have contributed this afternoon. One theme in virtually all the speeches, quite rightly, is the way in which we remember the late Sir David Amess, who was an assiduous and tireless advocate for his constituents and constituency. His presence is a constant reminder in these debates that he is sorely missed by colleagues across the House.
I also take the opportunity to pay tribute to the legacy of our friend Jo Cox. Last month marked 10 years since her murder, and it is debates such as this one that prove the truth, in her words, that we
“have far more in common than that which divides us.”—[Official Report, 3 June 2015; Vol. 596, c. 675.]
I also reiterate my condolences, which I paid on behalf of myself, the Government and the House this morning, to the family and friends of Ann Widdecombe at this dreadful time.
Regardless of party affiliation, at the heart of our politics are people and their families. Moments such as this are a stark reminder of the seriousness with which we must treat the safety of those in public life, and of the significance of how we speak to and treat each other. The tone that we take in this House matters. We set the standard of public discourse, and as this debate has shown, it is often made up of good-natured exchanges, beyond our party political differences.
At my count, we have heard from 29 Members today on a range of subjects, and I will refer to as many of them as I possibly can. However, I will start with the hon. Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) and thank him both for organising this debate and for his work as the Chair of the Backbench Business Committee. He often brings constituency matters to our attention on the Floor of the House, but he is also a powerful spokesman on matters of faith and foreign affairs. I happen to regard him now as a force of soft power all of his own.
I turn to the other contributions—I am sorry if I cannot give detail of every one. I will approach my speech slightly differently and look at some of the themes that have emerged this afternoon. If our constituents tuned into this debate, and if this kind of debate were a bit more frequent, I wonder whether they might see a different side of MPs than is sometimes portrayed outside, particularly on social media. One constant theme of today is praise for volunteers in our local communities who have taken part in a range of community action, from parks to phone boxes. They were raised by the right hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Wendy Morton) and my hon. Friends the Members for Stirling and Strathallan (Chris Kane), for Cowdenbeath and Kirkcaldy (Melanie Ward) and for North Warwickshire and Bedworth (Rachel Taylor), as well as being a theme throughout many of the speeches.
At the heart of these debates, very often, is the importance of the campaigning constituency Member of Parliament. I am delighted that in my considerable time in this House, I have seen the role of MPs change and develop, with an expectation that they are constituency-based and that their constituencies inform their work, which they then bring to this House. I will mention just some of the MPs who spoke, but again, that was a constant theme.
My hon. Friends the Members for Portsmouth North (Amanda Martin), for Colchester (Pam Cox), for Sunderland Central (Lewis Atkinson) and for Luton North (Sarah Owen), the hon. Member for Stockton West (Matt Vickers), my hon. Friends the Members for Erewash (Adam Thompson) and for Carlisle (Ms Minns), and my right hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) raised a range of individual issues that I do not have time to go into, but all of them showed the importance of campaigning MPs. I hope, and I believe, that constituents appreciate that.
Some Members have raised not just constituency matters, but the issues that most affect the kind of constituency that they represent. Two important contributions, from the hon. Member for Brigg and Immingham (Martin Vickers) and my hon. Friend the Member for Southend East and Rochford (Mr Alaba), concerned the significance of coastal communities—a matter dear to my heart, because my constituency is one. I encourage people to spend the rest of this fantastic summer in coastal communities; they might want to avoid Clacton until 13 August, but they will be welcome in places like Whitley Bay, in my constituency.
Slightly darker matters have also been raised. My hon. Friends the Members for Paisley and Renfrewshire North (Alison Taylor) and for Hendon (David Pinto-Duschinsky) mentioned the sometimes dangerous context in which we conduct our affairs and, unfortunately, as the name of this debate tells us, the price that is sometimes paid.
A constant theme has been that behind a hard-working and successful MP is a hard-working office, which is very often the face of the Member of Parliament in a constituency. I thank my constituency office; they have persevered with me for a very, very long time. That theme was echoed by the hon. Member for North East Fife (Wendy Chamberlain), my hon. Friends the Members for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Adam Jogee) and for South Derbyshire (Samantha Niblett), the hon. Member for Torbay (Steve Darling), and my hon. Friend the Member for Cowdenbeath and Kirkcaldy. I place on record our collective thanks to the people who work in our offices tirelessly; they often see lots of things that we would rather we did not see, and they just get on and deliver.
Members have raised the role of the Member of Parliament in working hand in hand with public bodies and public servants, and in holding them to account. Civil servants, NHS staff and teachers have been mentioned. My hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne East and Wallsend (Mary Glindon) reminded us that when someone has spent their life working in the civil service, they expect that their pension is dealt with properly. She is absolutely right. My hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland Central raised the importance of teachers in our local community; we send them our thanks. My hon. Friend the Member for Cannock Chase (Josh Newbury) raised a sad case. We should put on record our thanks to elected councillors, who play a fantastic role in our local communities. Public sector workers and elected representatives are not often thanked, but I do so now.
We also heard from MPs who are best described as being in the great tradition of MPs as inquisitors. We had the inquisitor general, the right hon. Member for Goole and Pocklington (David Davis), who reminded us of the murky waters of the SNP. All I would say to anyone listening to him, particularly north of the border, is that he is more often right than wrong—so more strength to his arm in that particular cause.
We also had the financial inquisitor general, the right hon. Member for North East Cambridgeshire (Steve Barclay), who raised the issue of restoration and renewal. I say to him and to the deputy shadow Leader of the House, the hon. Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk (John Lamont), that Parliament will have an opportunity to consider the issue because, first and foremost, it is a matter for Parliament. It is true that taxpayers’ money will be required to put this place right if that is what the House decides to do. There will be a decision for Parliament. However, I gently remind the right hon. Gentleman—he knows this—that it is not as if we can afford not to spend money and to keep things as they are. We are spending a fortune now, and we are not seeing the kind of improvement that restoration and renewal will bring, even though it is costly.
We have also heard from inquisitors at a local level— I am not sure that is the right word for the people I am about to mention, but I mean the MP as an inquisitor, who picks up an individual case or cause. We heard moving cases from both my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington South (Sarah Hall) and the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Dr Spencer); in my experience, those are often the most powerful stories, as we give a voice to the voiceless.
My hon. Friend the Member for Dunstable and Leighton Buzzard (Alex Mayer) complained that she is running out of issues to campaign on because of the success of the Labour Government. I take a lot of pleasure in saying, “Long may that continue.”
We also had the important theme of international affairs, which is as important if not more important than it was before. I do not want to go through all the difficulties faced now, but they are numerous. Again, issues have been raised that give a voice to the voiceless. That came through powerfully in the contributions of my friend the hon. Member for North East Fife and the right hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn). I give him my undertaking that I will pick up the case he spoke about with the Home Office. But as far as his comments about the Prime Minister and our party are concerned, I saw the right hon. Gentleman coming in and thought he would be coming to this debate and maybe making those points. As I recall, he was sporting a new baseball cap. I would just say to him, if the cap fits, wear it.
In closing, I want to express my gratitude to House staff, including Doorkeepers, cleaners, Clerks, catering, security, broadcasting, Hansard, and those in visitor experience, as well as our staff and constituency teams, and the civil servants who come together to make this place function. I want to make a special mention—they have already been mentioned, but I do so from the Dispatch Box—of people such as Margaret Labulo, Godfrey Asare and Richard Pengelly who are leaving this House after many years of distinguished service. I thank them for all their years of service to the House—they will be greatly missed. Of course, our thanks go to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, Mr Speaker and the other Deputy Speakers. As we rise for the summer recess, I offer my best wishes to everyone here today and to those listening, and I hope that everyone has a restful and safe summer recess.
Bob Blackman
I think that somewhere in the heavens, Sir David Amess will be looking down on this debate and saying thank you to the 32 Members who have participated. Everyone has brought great credit to this House by raising important matters before we rise for the summer recess. There is little more to be said, other than our best wishes for a long and happy retirement to those members of staff who are retiring, and for a peaceful recess for staff throughout the House, so that they are ready for us when we return for the debates that we will have.
I wish all Members and our staff, and you, Madam Deputy Speaker, Mr Speaker and the other Deputy Speakers—indeed, all of us—a happy recess. Let us hope that people can get some rest and recuperation because we will need it for vigorous debate with the new Prime Minister and the new Cabinet on what they bring forward for the future of this country.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered matters to be raised before the forthcoming Adjournment.
Repairs and refurbishment at Doncaster Royal Infirmary
(3 weeks, 6 days ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate
Sally Jameson (Doncaster Central) (Lab/Co-op)
I present this petition about repairs and refurbishment at Doncaster Royal Infirmary. People in Doncaster deserve a hospital that is fit for the future and the needs of the growing population. The petitioners
“therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to take into account the concerns of the petitioners and work with Doncaster and Bassetlaw Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust to prioritise the delivery of repairs and refurbishment at Doncaster Royal Infirmary.”
Following is the full text of the petition:
[The petition of residents of the constituency of Doncaster Central,
Declares that Doncaster Royal Infirmary is in need of repair and refurbishment; and notes that Doncaster and Bassetlaw Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust’s bid for a new hospital under the New Hospitals Programme was unsuccessful.
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to take into account the concerns of the petitioners and work with Doncaster and Bassetlaw Teaching Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust to prioritise the delivery of repairs and refurbishment at Doncaster Royal Infirmary.
And the petitioners remain, etc.]
[P003228]
Thirlwall Inquiry Terms of Reference
(3 weeks, 6 days ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
David Davis (Goole and Pocklington) (Con)
This is my third debate on the general issue of Lucy Letby, and I remind the House of what I have said before: justice must never be sacrificed for institutional self-preservation. We are awaiting the publication of the Thirlwall inquiry’s findings into the deaths at the Countess of Chester. When the inquiry was established, it was tasked with examining three areas: the experiences at the Countess of Chester and the parents named in the indictment; the conduct of the hospital’s staff with regard to Lucy Letby; and the effectiveness of NHS management and culture in safeguarding babies, and recommendations for reform if relevant.
Every question stems from the assumption that Lucy Letby is guilty beyond doubt. Since her trial and conviction, a growing body of distinguished scientific opinion has challenged the supposed evidence on which they rest. Prominent experts—heads of royal societies and royal colleges, and leading voices in medicine, statistics and forensics—have raised concerns about Miss Letby’s convictions. They have come forward in extraordinary numbers, calling for the inquiry’s scope to be revised. If the case against Miss Letby is straightforward, why have so many people with nothing to gain, but their reputations to lose, publicly challenged it?
At the outset of the inquiry, I warned the chair that by failing to broaden its terms of reference to examine credible alternative hypotheses, we risk protecting a conclusion rather than conducting a forensic search for the truth. The Post Office Horizon scandal highlighted the institutional instinct to find a convenient scapegoat. Innocent people paid the price, while the institution sought to protect itself. If the Thirlwall inquiry asks too narrow a set of questions, systemic NHS failures will go unexamined. More innocent children will die, more innocent parents will be put through agony, and another hospital will find another scapegoat—that is the consequence of getting this wrong.
So what should the inquiry’s terms of reference include? There are at least three lines of inquiry that deserve examination. Each is supported by substantial evidence. Each almost certainly contributed to what happened. Each risks being overlooked. The first is the staffing crises: this was a neonatal unit stretched beyond its limits and operating under relentless pressure. The second is poor clinical management: the unit was repeatedly tasked with caring for babies requiring the highest level of specialist capacity—capacity it did not have. The third is environmental risks: there were serious contamination problems within the hospital.
Two damning reviews of NHS maternity services more generally have now been published. The Ockenden report exposed failures at Nottingham University hospitals NHS trust that mirror those at the Countess of Chester: infections, overcrowding, under-resourcing, sustained pressure and overstretched staff—different hospitals, but strikingly similar failures. Baroness Amos has also published her final report on NHS maternity and neonatal services. Its conclusions echo with remarkable consistency the concerns raised about the Countess of Chester. Baroness Amos concluded:
“the maternity and neonatal system is not set up to deliver consistently safe, high-quality and compassionate care... It is fragmented, overly complex and too slow to…improve.”
She highlighted “unsafe and unacceptable” hospital buildings, “excessive workload pressures” and staff who felt
“ignored… when they raised concerns about whether they could provide a safe or joined-up service”.
She also highlighted “dangerous clinical environments”, senior leaders who “were not accountable” and, of course, staff who were
“fearful of being blamed when things went wrong”.
If the Thirlwall inquiry was unwilling to heed the growing concerns of experts, it cannot dismiss the conclusions of two Government reviews.
As far back as 2004, senior neonatal staff at the Countess of Chester were warning management of a
“staffing crisis which...shows no signs of abating”,
highlighting that the unit was operating 30% to 40% below the staffing levels recommended by the British Association of Perinatal Medicine. They described stress that “exceeded tolerable levels”, reinforcing that such conditions
“could increase the risk of unintentional professional negligence”.
But how did management respond? To cut costs they abolished the advanced neonatal nurse practitioners, the most highly trained specialists in their field, upon whom the entire safe working of the unit depended. One of the nurses let go later described it as “the decimation of the Nursing and Midwifery service”,
adding that
“eight registered nurses...were replaced with nursery nurses...unqualified staff are replacing qualified staff”.
She described a trust blighted by
“inefficient managers...managers to manage managers, people to tick boxes...inefficient computer programmes”,
all
“at the expense of the registered nurse/midwife”.
If management’s response was to bury the problem, what does that tell us about the state of the Countess of Chester by 2015? A system repeatedly warned to be unsafe cannot merely be treated as the backdrop to the events of 2015 to 2016—it is at least part of the explanation.
By 2012 the hospital was recruiting newly qualified nurses, often straight from university. One of them was Lucy Letby. During the years Lucy Letby is alleged to have committed her crimes—specifically 2015 to 2016—the neonatal unit was still functioning under dangerous pressure. Notably, one nurse working on the unit during this period recalled:
“2015 and 2016 were horrendously busy... They were probably the worst years I can remember in more than twenty years... Everybody was absolutely stretched to the limit... You were expected to look after the maximum number that you could—sometimes over the number that you should.”
The inquiry ought to ask, if concerns had been raised for over a decade, to what extent did those unresolved staffing failures contribute to the tragedies that followed? Were those failures addressed before responsibility was placed on Letby?
There are three levels of care in neonatal units, depending on the complexity of care that a unit is equipped to provide. Appropriate grading of a neonatal unit is fundamental to patient safety. Level 1 units accept babies with low care needs. Level 3 units accept babies needing the highest level of medical care. The Countess of Chester was a level 3 unit throughout the early 2000s, but in 2005 it was downgraded to level 2, an admittance that the unit could not handle level 3 babies.
But the unit continued to operate under immense strain, worsened by management’s decision to get rid of its hugely experienced advanced neonatal nurse practitioners. Years later, when Lucy Letby started at the Countess in 2012, conditions remained poor. There was little space, cots and incubators were stored in corridors, and mothers struggled to find somewhere to breastfeed their babies. Susan Gilby, the hospital’s chief executive between 2018 and 2022, later described the unit as “dark, dingy and cramped”, providing a “less than ideal” environment to work in. Remember, this was a level 2 neonatal unit tasked with providing short-term intensive care for fragile babies.
Indeed, the deficiencies were so serious that the trust launched a £3 million public fundraising campaign to pay for a new neonatal unit because the necessary capital funding was not available through the NHS. This was an acknowledgment that the unit was not fit for purpose. The inquiry ought to ask: was the unit being asked to deliver a level of care that it was not capable of providing?
Staff at the time certainly thought so. One nurse warned the unit manager,
“something awful is going to happen here...we can’t carry on like this”.
In late 2015, one consultant said the unit was so busy that it was running out of vital equipment, adding:
“This is now our normal working pattern and it is not safe. Things are...at breaking point. When things snap, the casualties will either be children’s lives or the...health of our staff.”
The spike in baby deaths was that breaking point.
The Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health report from November 2016 confirmed that the unit was
“non-compliant on nurse and medical staffing levels”
when assessed against service standards for a level 2 unit. It ought to have been downgraded further, to a level 1. Indeed, it is often claimed that babies on the unit stopped dying as soon as Letby was removed from the ward. That assertion ignores perhaps the most critical fact. In July 2016, when Letby was removed from the ward, the neonatal unit was finally downgraded to a level 1.
In that moment, the risk profile changed. Fewer of the sickest babies were admitted at the Countess. The 2016 Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health report is clear that since the redesignation from level 2 to level 1, the pressure
“has reduced and the unit is operating more in line with BAPM staffing standards. The consultants also reported that in the two months since the change infants have been sick but recovered as expected.”
The report highlighted deficiencies in staffing levels, leadership and communication, but, in the trial, it was not shown to the jury—they knew nothing of it. In July 2016, the unit was downgraded and Lucy Letby left the ward. It is irrational to assume that one of those two events was entirely responsible for the sharp reduction in deaths without testing the other event properly. The inquiry must examine both changes to determine which made the difference.
During 2015 and 2016, when the neonatal mortality rates spiked, the hospital faced infection control problems. One nurse described the unit as her “worst nightmare”. Pseudomonas aeruginosa had colonised taps in the nurseries of the neonatal unit. Pseudomonas forms a biofilm—a layer that allows the bacteria to spread within a water system—and can kill newborns. In 2012, at Belfast’s Royal Jubilee maternity hospital, three premature babies died from it. In an effort to mitigate the risks of Pseudomonas, the Countess of Chester installed filters on the taps, but the filters kept falling off. Another of the babies Letby is said to have murdered was found to have Stenotrophomonas maltophilia in their breathing tube—a bug responsible for some of the deaths at Glasgow’s scandal-hit Queen Elizabeth University hospital.
Of the 17 babies Lucy Letby is said to have murdered or attempted to murder, at least 14 babies either had an infection or were suspected to have an infection. Professor Shoo Lee’s panel identified that 10 infants were receiving antibiotics, and court proceedings identified another three. The fact that at least 13 babies were treated with antibiotics suggests that the clinicians considered infection to be a real possibility in these cases. On top of that, MRSA, C. difficile and MSSA were detected across the trust; it is not known whether they were present in the neonatal intensive care unit.
While giving evidence at her own trial, Miss Letby told jurors that the neonatal unit had problems with “raw sewage” coming from sinks. That was not an invention in the hopes of abdicating responsibility; contemporaneous messages between staff show that these concerns were raised at the time. Remember: this was a neonatal intensive care unit. One nurse suggested that an infection on the unit could be to blame. Letby agreed, describing sewage coming from the sink and overflowing toilets. She added:
“The unit needs properly assessing, I don’t think the equipment gets cleaned properly…we haven’t got the space, facilities…to maintain hygiene.”
Those messages predate any criminal investigation, and the hospital’s plumber confirmed under oath that human waste was backing up into handwashing basins. On top of the other microbiological concerns, human waste contains E. coli—another hazard to vulnerable new-born babies. Professor David Livermore, a professor of medical microbiology, is right to say:
“Infection was such an obvious cause of a spike in deaths. What investigation did they do [into this?] I’m yet to see any clarity on this.”
Even the parents themselves had initially assumed that if something had gone wrong, it was likely because of the hospital’s failings. One mother giving evidence against Lucy Letby during her trial admitted that
“I thought, the hospital’s old, it’s not very nice. It was dirty, and I thought it was along the lines of medical negligence. It never entered my mind that there was somebody intentionally harming babies”.
That is the hospital we are talking about—old, not very nice, dirty—and it does not look as though the medical management of the hospital did anything to mitigate the risk arising from those problems. A mother of three triplets who moved to Liverpool Women’s Hospital said she
“noticed a different level of cleanliness compared to the Countess”
as there were “clear hygiene protocols” at Liverpool, where, she said:
“We were told to wash our hands before entering the Unit and then again before entering the room”,
which was not the case at the Countess of Chester.
One father of a baby born at the Countess of Chester in May 2016 described the unit as “chaotic” and “failing”. He described an atmosphere of tension where
“it wouldn’t take much more”
for the unit “to blow up.” His daughter had had a difficult delivery and could not breathe at birth. He and his wife discovered three years later that she had been the sickest baby on the unit for over 24 hours. Not a single doctor spoke to them about this, while nurses repeatedly told them that their baby was “fine”. Against that backdrop, he recalls that Lucy Letby stood out as the only staff member who took time to explain his baby’s condition. The hospital itself later told him that Lucy had “saved” his daughter’s life and had gone
“above and beyond the call of duty.”
He stated bluntly that the jury in Miss Letby’s trial was not given the full picture—the systemic problems, lack of communication and overall disorder.
History judges institutions not by how confidently they defend themselves, but by whether they had the courage to confront uncomfortable truths. The Thirlwall inquiry now faces that test. An inquiry that refuses to ask difficult questions is not fearless—it is formulaic. An inquiry that overlooks credible evidence is not comprehensive—it is compromised. A major failure of the trial was that the jury was not shown evidence from authoritative sources such as the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health that offered a credible alternative explanation for the spike in deaths. The inquiry must not replicate that failure, and it must not lend its authority to what may be a major miscarriage of justice. It owes the parents who lost their babies, and future parents of future babies at risk, the absolute truth. It must follow the evidence and fear no conclusion.
If facts are left unexamined, lessons are left unlearned. The inquiry should heed the warnings of Ockenden and Amos, and the countless voices emerging in Miss Letby’s defence. Structural failure, institutional failure, and medical incompetence or even malevolence—every one of those explanations must be dragged into the light, and the unvarnished truth exposed.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Preet Kaur Gill)
It is an honour to respond for the Government in the last debate until September. I extend my thanks to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, as well as to the other Deputy Speakers and Mr Speaker, for your stewardship of this House, and to everyone who works here in Parliament and in our constituency offices. I also thank all our NHS staff, who are keeping the service going despite record demand over the summer.
The right hon. Member for Goole and Pocklington (David Davis) has raised an extremely serious matter. I want to start by expressing my heartfelt sympathy to all the families who were affected by the terrible events at the Countess of Chester hospital—as a mother of two daughters, I cannot begin to imagine what they are going through. On top of their grief, they have been subject to a level of press scrutiny that would match anything we have faced as Members of this place. They have been left in limbo, waiting for answers. As someone who advocates for constituents at my own trust, I know that this will take an additional toll on their mental health, and all of us in this Chamber can agree that they deserve closure.
The previous Government established the Thirlwall inquiry in October 2023 to examine the events at the Countess of Chester hospital NHS foundation trust. Its terms of reference are available online. Lady Justice Thirlwall’s recommendations will help us to understand what went so wrong at the Countess of Chester. Her inquiry has now finished hearing evidence, and the final report will be published at the earliest practical date.
Lucy Letby was found guilty by her peers, following two criminal trials. She is currently serving 15 whole-life sentences for murder and attempted murder, and her convictions were upheld by the Court of Appeal. This is an independent judicial process, and it is not for the Government to comment on judicial decisions or appeals.
The right hon. Gentleman has called for the inquiry’s terms of reference to be amended or expanded to reflect the ongoing public debate around the safety of Miss Letby’s convictions, but the point of the inquiry is not to rehearse Lucy Letby’s trial; it is to focus on how people within the trust responded based on what they knew, or should have known, at the time of the events. The inquiry is now in the report-writing stage, and I have every confidence that the chair will consider all the evidence when drawing conclusions and writing her report and recommendations. I do not consider that there is a case to either amend or expand the terms of reference, based on the information currently available.
There is a separate process going through the Criminal Cases Review Commission, which received a full application in relation to Miss Letby’s case in April 2025. The merits of the application are solely for the CCRC to consider and, if appropriate, to refer the case for further consideration to the Court of Appeal. An application to the CCRC does not in itself indicate that the convictions are, or are likely to be, unsafe. Again, the right hon. Gentleman will understand that this is an independent process, and it is not for the Government to comment on, nor intervene in, individual applications.
I am aware that the right hon. Gentleman has also called for the inquiry to be paused or suspended while the CCRC is reviewing Miss Letby’s application. An application was made by legal teams for Miss Letby and former executives at the trust to the inquiry chair to consider exercising her powers to pause the inquiry under section 17 of the Inquiries Act 2005. An application was made in parallel by the same legal teams to the then Secretary of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for Ilford North (Wes Streeting), to suspend the inquiry under section 13 of that Act. The basis for both applications was that the inquiry should be halted until the CCRC had determined Letby’s application.
In March 2025, the chair refused the application and set out her reasons in detail. For transparency, that has been made available online. In her judgment, the chair considered, among other things, the question of fairness, and she was satisfied that the inquiry process had been fair and would not become unfair because there is a possibility that all the convictions were unsafe. My right hon. Friend the Member for Ilford North agreed with that reasoning.
It would not be appropriate for the Government to speculate on the outcome of the CCRC’s determination, and we should take into account that the families have not supported any pause or suspension of the inquiry either. Even if, hypothetically, we did take that unprecedented step, I concur with my right hon. Friend that any suspension would create unnecessary delays and become a barrier to the families receiving the answers they deserve.
There has been no new information that would make us think twice about this decision, nor change the terms of reference, and there is a strong public interest in the inquiry being concluded as soon as possible. That is why this Government shall not suspend the inquiry pending the outcome of Miss Letby’s application to the CCRC to review her convictions.
Aphra Brandreth (Chester South and Eddisbury) (Con)
The Countess of Chester hospital is the local hospital for me and for many of my constituents. They will rightly want to know the outcome of the inquiry. On top of these historical matters, last year the CQC rated the Countess of Chester hospital’s urgent and emergency care services inadequate and found that the overall hospital requires improvement. While I recognise the work that the trust is doing to deliver against its improvement plan, and I thank it for its communication with me, there is still vital work to be done. Can the Minister set out what she is doing to ensure that it makes those improvements, so that my constituents can be reassured that they will be getting access to the best possible healthcare, as they deserve?
Preet Kaur Gill
The hon. Member makes some important, valid points. Of course, the Countess of Chester hospital will want to know the outcome of the inquiry. As she rightly says, the CQC has been in and has made lots of recommendations, especially because of the inadequate rating.
I have asked for a submission from the CQC to understand what progress has been made. I have been informed that there has been some progress, but equally there are lots of areas in which there has not been progress. I am making sure that I am receiving regular updates, because, as the hon. Lady rightly says, every parent wants to see change. In the end, this is about so many lives. Parents have had to go through such heartbreaking situations just to get to justice, and they do deserve disclosure. I therefore really do thank her for her intervention.
Where the inquiry identifies lessons on safeguarding vulnerable patients or on how management responds to patient safety concerns, the Government will examine them rigorously and take forward all recommendations that are deliverable, justified and in the public interest.
There is a huge amount of interest, inside and outside the Chamber, about the professional regulation of managers in the NHS. We all know that the NHS needs and deserves the best leaders. We are committed to supporting their development and professionalism, and to strengthening accountability where they fall short. Work is already under way to develop an NHS college of leadership and management to support and develop NHS leaders.
In addition, we will legislate in this Parliament to enable the Health and Care Professions Council to begin to operate a statutory barring system for senior managers. The mechanism will enable the Health and Care Professions Council to prevent senior NHS leaders whose conduct is unacceptable from working again in senior roles. The Government have also launched the maternity and neonatal taskforce, personally chaired by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, which will translate Baroness Amos’s recommendations into action.
The right hon. Member for Goole and Pocklington has campaigned against Government overreach his entire career; I respect him for that. I know that he will agree with me that our democracy rests on a separation of powers, and I trust our independent judiciary to get on with the job. There are well-established criminal processes and procedures for how expert evidence is used at criminal trials. In our democracy, there are also routes for people to challenge convictions if they protest their innocence—even for Lucy Letby.
It is not for me or the Government to undermine those processes. Our attention should remain on the families and parents impacted by the case and on continuing to work towards providing answers and closure for them. That is what the Government are focused on, and we trust the Thirlwall inquiry to give us those answers.
Question put and agreed to.
Health Bill (Sixteenth sitting)
Thursday 16th July 2026
(3 weeks, 6 days ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Health Bill 2026-27 View all Health Bill 2026-27 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 16 July 2026 - (16 Jul 2026)
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 2 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 4 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 4 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 3 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 5 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 3 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 3 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 5 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 5 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 5 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 2 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Chair
We resume line-by-line consideration of the Health Bill. The selection list for today’s sitting is available in the room. Proceedings must, so far as not previously concluded, be brought to a conclusion by 5 pm. Once again, I am happy to give a blanket dispensation for the removal of jackets.
New Clause 31
ECG screenings
“Within six months of the passage of this Act, the Secretary of State must conduct and publish a review into the use of ECG screenings to identify cardiac issues in persons over 14 years of age.”—(Dr Chambers.)
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to conduct and publish a review into the use of ECG screenings to identify cardiac issues in persons over 14 years of age.
Brought up, and read the First time.
Dr Danny Chambers (Winchester) (LD)
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
Twelve young people die every week from undiagnosed heart conditions. One of those was Clarissa Nicholls, who died just before her 21st birthday, while on a year abroad in France. Her mother and friends have campaigned tirelessly not only to provide electrocardiograms to young people, but to raise awareness about early detection of heart conditions. Finding a heart condition does not mean that exercise must stop or that life goes on hold; it just means that appropriate alterations can be made to keep a person safe, active and healthy.
Such a scheme has been rolled out in Italy and has been hugely successful. The new clause would push the Government to look seriously at having ECGs for young people as an early identifier for potentially fatal conditions, so that we do not lose up to 12 young people a week due just to a lack of testing.
Dr Peter Prinsley (Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket) (Lab)
I thank the hon. Member for his speech. I would like to know whether he is aware of any evidence that mass screening of young people with ECGs will actually improve matters.
The Chair
As that was a speech and not an intervention, we will take the Minister before the hon. Member for Winchester responds.
The Minister for Secondary Care (Karin Smyth)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Dr Huq. The hon. Member for Winchester raises an important point. Cardiac issues are serious, and people too often lose their lives as a result of unidentified cardiac conditions. As we know, ECGs are used significantly across the whole of healthcare, from accident and emergency to new community diagnostic centres and beyond. They are important for investigating palpitations or unexpected syncope and for evaluating pacemaker function, and are an extremely useful diagnostic tool. However, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket suggested, there is no clear evidence that non-symptomatic population screening using standard ECGs would yield any useful health data or improve population outcomes.
Clearly, the loss of life—particularly a young life, as in the case of the constituent the hon. Member for Winchester mentioned, although we have all seen or, sadly, experienced such cases—is an awful tragedy for those concerned, but we need to rely on evidence. The UK National Screening Committee, which is an independent scientific advisory body, advises all four nations and is considering the issue. The committee launched a three-month public consultation on 8 June to look at the evidence on screening for sudden cardiac death. Its draft recommendation is against screening, because ECGs, as well as other tests, are an unreliable tool for identifying significant cardiac issues in asymptomatic individuals. ECGs are useful tools in the diagnosis of symptomatic patients, and the UK National Screening Committee is in the process of reviewing ECG use for asymptomatic individuals. For those reasons, I ask the hon. Member to withdraw the new clause.
Dr Chambers
I thank the Minister for her comments. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause 32
Review on deaths related to antimicrobial resistant infection
“Within six months of the passage of this Act, the Secretary of State must conduct and publish a review into the number of yearly deaths in the UK which are related to antimicrobial resistant infection.”—(Dr Chambers.)
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to conduct and publish a review into the number of yearly deaths in the UK which are related to antimicrobial resistant infection.
Brought up, and read the First time.
Dr Chambers
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
The new clause would require the Secretary of State to conduct and publish a review into the yearly number of deaths in the UK related to antimicrobial-resistant infections. I declare an interest as the secretary of the all-party parliamentary group on antimicrobial resistance. AMR is a major threat to public health globally and domestically, and it is already contributing to an estimated 35,200 deaths every year in the UK.
AMR is a bit like a silent pandemic. It gets little media attention, but given the prediction that 39 million people worldwide will have died of AMR by 2040, it will eventually be pushed right up the political agenda. This is not simply a matter of people dying from infections that could not be treated; nearly all the advances in modern medicine over the last 50, 60 or 70 years would be null and void. It would be too risky for someone to have something like a hip replacement, because of the risk of getting an infection that could kill them; they would be better off living with a painful arthritic hip than taking the risk of dying from sepsis. It is the same with things like heart disease, while giving birth will once again become one of the most dangerous things a woman can do if we lose the impact and effectiveness of antibiotics.
The Government invested more than £560 million in AMR programmes between 2020 and 2024, so it is reasonable that Parliament should receive an annual assessment of AMR-related deaths to ensure that that significant public investment is delivering results, represents value for money and is targeted where it can have the greatest impact. We cannot effectively tackle what we do not measure, and an annual review of deaths linked to AMR would provide a clear, consistent picture of the scale of the problem and enable Parliament and the public to track whether policies are working.
Better data leads to better targeted interventions. We know that rapid diagnostic tests and different types of decontamination will be hugely important in tackling AMR, along with potential future technologies such as phage technology. Surveillance has already identified significant variations by age, deprivation and geography. Understanding where deaths are occurring, and in who, would help direct resources to the communities and services that are most affected.
AMR threatens the effectiveness of modern medicine, including surgery, cancer treatment and routine healthcare. An annual review of AMR-related deaths would ensure that this growing public health threat receives the attention and urgency it deserves. The reason I am determined to push it up the agenda is that the national cancer plan does not specifically mention AMR or infection, but it is the second biggest cause of death in cancer patients. At the moment, it is not pushed up the political agenda enough.
Karin Smyth
I commend the hon. Member for outlining this important issue before the Committee and for his work on the APPG.
AMR is recognised as a chronic risk in the Government’s national risk register. In 2022, it was estimated that 7,500 deaths per year can be directly attributed to AMR in the UK, with a further 35,000 deaths per year associated with AMR. It is a significant and growing issue that the Government take very seriously—I want to assure the hon. Member and the Committee of that. Through the delivery of the 2024 to 2029 UK AMR national action plan, the Government are already taking comprehensive action to tackle this threat and ultimately reduce the burden it places on individuals, families and the healthcare system. That is where that work is located.
I am not convinced that a review of the number of deaths at this point, while important, would add significantly to our understanding of the impact and burden of AMR or to the action being taken to address it, which we do take seriously. The Government will continue to work with APPGs and with information around this issue through the action plan. For that reason, I ask the hon. Member to withdraw the new clause.
Dr Chambers
I thank the Minister for her comments. We understand that the Government take this matter very seriously, but we are working on estimated numbers of deaths for something that will eventually be killing more people than covid. We really need some tangible figures, so I will press the new clause to a Division.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
Helen Morgan (North Shropshire) (LD)
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss new clause 37—Powers for coroners and medical examiners to report suspected health system failings—
“(1) The Secretary of State must, by regulations, establish a standard mechanism for coroners and medical examiners to refer cases where they suspect failings in the provision of health care.
(2) A coroner or a medical examiner has a duty to report (a ‘duty to whistleblow’) using the mechanism established under subsection (1) if, in the course of their duties, they have reasonable grounds to suspect that a death or incident involved systemic failings in a health care setting.
(3) A referral under this section must be directed to any or all of the following bodies, as the coroner or medical examiner considers appropriate, based on the nature of the suspected failing—
(a) the chief officer of police for the relevant police area,
(b) the Care Quality Commission,
(c) the Department of Health and Social Care, and
(d) the Health Services Safety Investigations Body.
(4) Regulations under subsection (1) must specify—
(a) the information to be included in a referral,
(b) the timeframe within which a referral must be made following the formation of a suspicion, and
(c) guidance on the criteria for determining to which of the bodies listed in subsection (3) the referral must be directed.
(5) A disclosure made in fulfilment of the duty under subsection (2) is a protected disclosure for the purposes of Part 4A of the Employment Rights Act 1996 (protection for whistleblowing).
(6) The duties imposed by this section are in addition to, and do not affect, a senior coroner’s duty to make a report under paragraph 7 of Schedule 5 to the Coroners and Justice Act 2009 (reports on action to prevent other deaths).”
This new clause requires the Secretary of State to create a standardised framework for them to formally refer suspected health system failings (including systemic issues) directly to the police, the CQC, the Department of Health and Social Care, and the HSSIB, with a duty on coroners to participate. It provides legal protection for those making such referrals.
Helen Morgan
New clause 36 would introduce a mandatory individual duty for members of NHS trust and NHS foundation trust boards to escalate evidence of systemic medical malpractice to the Care Quality Commission, the Department of Health and Social Care and the Health Services Safety Investigations Body. It would also impose a collective duty on the board to formally refer the trust to regulators if staff raise concerns about malpractice.
New clause 37 would require the Secretary of State to create a standardised framework for coroners and medical examiners to formally refer suspected health system failings, including systemic issues, directly to the police, the CQC, the Department of Health and Social Care and HSSIB, with a duty on coroners to participate. It would provide legal protection for those making such referrals.
The new clauses were tabled in the light of the Ockenden review into failings at Nottingham university hospitals NHS trust, which came out a couple of weeks ago, and other reviews, including the review of Mid Staffordshire some time ago, which showed that hospital management failed to spot, and more importantly deal with, systemic issues. Staff were dismissed, failures were hidden from regulators, and patients and their families were not listened to. In the case of Nottingham, the board commissioned a number of independent reports into maternity services, and when it did not see an answer it liked, it just commissioned another one. We feel strongly that those issues should have been referred onwards as soon as they were known about. The new clauses would introduce a mandatory duty and create a standardised framework within which such concerns could be raised.
Coroners and medical examiners often spot trends or worrying failures in care that they think might hint at something systemic, but their main power is a regulation 28 order. When an order goes back to the hospital board, it investigates and reports back: “Everything is fine. We’ve dealt with the problem. There’s nothing to see here.” Coroners are often overworked and trying to get through huge court backlogs, so they do not have sufficient capacity to push back, even when they question the diligence of the internal review. We want to give them more powers and standardised routes to escalate concerns to the police, the CHC, the DHSC or the HSSIB , where they see fit. We need as many eyes on this as possible, because we have seen a defensive cover-up culture too many times.
We tabled similar amendments to the Hillsborough Bill to achieve the same outcome. We all know that the NHS is under strain and overworked, but trust management need to be more transparent, open and receptive to staff concerns. Although I do not intend to push the new clause to a vote, I am interested to hear from the Minister what the Government plan to do to ensure that concerns are acted on more quickly.
Karin Smyth
I thank the hon. Member for North Shropshire, who raises issues of patient safety diligently on behalf of her constituents and the wider system. I will take the time to answer some of the points about where the Government are. Obviously, we support prioritising patient safety, which along with service quality and experience is of the utmost importance.
On new clause 36, trusts are already subject to regulatory and contractual requirements to report medical malpractice, which is why we do not think the new clause is necessary. For example, CQC regulations on safe care and treatment and on good governance are central to trust accountability for systemic malpractice. They require trusts to have effective systems to identify patterns of harm, manage risks and deliver system-wide improvements.
Trusts are required to identify and report incidents leading to significant harm through the Learn from Patient Safety Events service, ensuring that the CQC is informed and enabling NHS England to identify trends and support learning and improvement. This information can be shared with and accessed by HSSIB and could in the future be shared with and accessed by the investigations arm of the CQC.
The CQC regulation on duty of candour reinforces transparency through truthful accounts of what has happened when something goes wrong, including where harm reflects systemic issues. Under the patient safety incident response framework, trusts must undertake patient safety learning investigations into certain incidents to support learning and improvement.
In parallel, the NHS provider licence requires NHS trust boards to maintain clear accountability for quality of care and reporting of safety information through effective governance systems. Where failures of governance occur, NHS England has the powers to intervene. Those powers will transfer to the Secretary of State as part of the Bill.
The new clause would clearly duplicate current processes. Together, the existing mechanisms already help trusts to identify and address systemic issues locally, while enabling national aggregation to support system-wide learning.
New clause 37 seeks to require the creation of a standardised framework for coroners and medical examiners to report health system failings. I take the opportunity to reassure the hon. Member for North Shropshire that regulations already require medical examiners to report serious concerns identified in respect of clinical governance, patient safety or public health surveillance, in accordance with local reporting arrangements. Existing regulations also require coroners, in the context of an investigation, to issue a report to a person, organisation, local authority, or Government Department or agency where the coroner believes they may have power to take relevant action to prevent future deaths.
In September 2024, the Department of Health and Social Care introduced death certification reforms, putting in place regulations to provide greater safeguards for the public by ensuring independent scrutiny by medical examiners of all deaths not investigated by a coroner. These reforms, as set out in the Medical Certificate of Cause of Death Regulations 2024, which require an independent review to be carried out for all deaths in England, introduce a system whereby all deaths are subject to either a medical examiner’s independent scrutiny or a coroner’s investigation.
Should the medical examiner detect concerns about care, they will refer such cases to established clinical governance review processes and bodies and notify the coroner or, if necessary, the police. The Notification of Deaths Regulations 2019 require all doctors, including medical examiners, to refer a death to a coroner if they believe that deficiency of care while undergoing treatment contributed to the death, making the death unnatural. Under the Coroners and Justice Act 2009, a coroner has a statutory duty to report issues to the appropriate bodies where they believe that action can be taken to mitigate or prevent the risk of future deaths, and both the report and responses to it are published by the chief coroner.
When incidents and errors occur resulting in death or serious injury, it is important that we learn any lessons. The Government are committed to ensuring that the prevention of future deaths reports are taken seriously and lead to meaningful action. The Department is working across Government and with the chief coroner to identify ways to strengthen oversight and ensure that the right organisations are consistently notified of concerns, respond to them in a timely manner and drive appropriate action.
Under the Medical Act 1983, the General Medical Council ensures that all doctors, including medical examiners, report suspected health system failings by speaking up. That is a mandatory professional obligation linked to a doctor’s licence to practise, embedding this whistleblowing requirement into the GMC’s core regulatory and fitness to practise frameworks. The GMC also enforces a professional duty of candour requiring all doctors to be open and honest with patients and official bodies when things go wrong and actively report adverse incidents so that systematic lessons can be learned.
In summary, both new clauses duplicate requirements that already exist. Regulations, systems and processes are already in place to report suspected health system failings to the appropriate bodies. For that reason, I ask the hon. Member for North Shropshire to withdraw the new clause.
Helen Morgan
I thank the Minister for outlining the existing statutory framework. I agree that it ought to be sufficient, but there are high-profile instances where it has not been, so I look forward to hearing more from her on Report about how the cultural change will be implemented so that further legislation is not necessary. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the new clause.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause 38
Single sex facilities
“The Secretary of State is required to ensure that there are single sex—
(a) changing rooms for NHS staff
(b) toilets and washing facilities for NHS staff
(c) wards for NHS patients
(d) toilets and washing facilities for NHS patients.”—(Dr Caroline Johnson.)
This new clause creates a requirement for the Secretary of State to ensure certain single sex facilities are made available for NHS staff and patients.
Brought up, and read the First time.
Dr Johnson
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
This is a very straightforward new clause. The Secretary of State would be required to ensure that there are single-sex changing rooms, toilets and washing facilities for NHS staff and single-sex wards, toilets and washing facilities for NHS patients.
The UK Supreme Court unanimously ruled that a woman is defined by biological sex in 2025, and the Minister herself said:
“We are completely committed to single-sex spaces.”
However, it appears that the Minister for Women and Equalities did not get that memo. Despite having apparently been sat on her desk since September, the new draft code from the Equality and Human Rights Commission was not laid before Parliament until 21 May. One week before that guidance was published, a female NHS England employee in Leeds won her claims of indirect sex discrimination and harassment over a policy allowing transgender colleagues to use toilets and changing rooms that correspond to their gender identity rather than their biological sex. On 28 June, after the draft code was laid, it was reported that West London NHS trust had told patients that they could use single-sex facilities based on gender identity.
It has taken the current Health Secretary some time, but I understand that he has changed his mind on the issue and come to the same conclusion as others: that a woman is, in fact, a woman and that toilets and changing facilities must be protected. Will the Minister follow his lead and protect single-sex spaces in NHS trusts? The Supreme Court has ruled that a woman is defined by her biological sex. My party knows that. The Minister claims her party knows that too. It is time for her to show it by pulling the levers that only she can to ensure that patients and staff are protected right across our health service.
Karin Smyth
I am grateful to the hon. Member for bringing this discussion before the Committee. She is right that, following the For Women Scotland case at the Supreme Court in April 2025 and the recent laying of the Equality and Human Rights Commission’s updated code of practice on 21 May, ensuring the provision of single-sex facilities for patients and staff is a prominent issue. The Government welcomed the clarity provided by the Supreme Court judgment. The EHRC code of practice sets out how service providers may lawfully apply sex-based distinctions following the Supreme Court judgment. That guidance is applicable to services, public functions and associations and includes, but is not limited to, the services provided in the NHS.
Following that, NHS England drafted the revised guidance, “Privacy, dignity and safety in hospital accommodation”, which will align with the legal position and the EHRC code of practice and replace existing guidance. I know that many colleagues are impatient to see the existing guidance replaced following the Supreme Court ruling. It was important to wait for the EHRC code of practice to be published so that it could be considered in any guidance. The code of practice was published on 21 May. Following the publication, NHS England reviewed the guidance to ensure that it was in line with the code. The code was subject to a 40-day laying period before Parliament, which ended on 9 July. The Government expect the code to come into force in early August. Guidance for the NHS will be published shortly afterwards.
NHS England is also developing guidance on staff facilities, including changing rooms, toilets and washing facilities that should be used by trusts and ICBs. The provision of physical single-sex facilities for NHS staff is for NHS organisations to individually manage in line with their legal obligations. There is already legislation covering this issue, particularly the Workplace (Health, Safety and Welfare) Regulations 1992. Organisations should already be conducting assessments of their own estates and the needs of their workforce to decide what changes they need to make to comply with all legislative requirements.
On mixed-sex accommodation and breaches, there is a long-standing policy of same-sex accommodation. Individuals should not have to share sleeping accommodation with patients of the opposite sex unless appropriate. In practice, the proposed amendment does not allow scope for mixed-sex accommodation where clinically appropriate—for example, intensive care unit facilities or where it is necessary for patient safety. For those reasons, I ask the hon. Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham to withdraw the new clause.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
Dr Johnson
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
New clause 40 would require the Secretary of State to publish a report detailing the business case for the use of public-private partnerships for neighbourhood health centres. This goes back to the use of the private finance initiative in the past, particularly during the last Labour Government when Ministers were attracted by the prospect of off-balance sheet financing. Although the idea looked good on paper, it proved a disaster in practice. Before the 2008 financial crisis, private finance initiative interest rates were 2.5% to 4.4% higher than public sector borrowing rates. After the crisis, PFI projects increased their rates by 20% to 30%. In the interests of time, I will not rehash the story I told earlier in Committee about the problems with simple things such as putting a whiteboard up, but PFI did create operational problems, too.
The previous Government rightly called time on PFI and announced in the 2018 Budget that it would not be used for future projects, which is why this Government’s plans are so peculiar. Labour Ministers have taken a trip to the graveyard of bad ideas, resurrected PFI and adorned it in new clothes: it is now PPP. The Government have tried to reassure the public that it is not a rehash of PFI, but the facts suggest otherwise. The funding of neighbourhood health centres is to be 80% through PPP. The Minister told the BBC we will be working with the private sector, particularly around construction and maintenance of many of the new centres. How is PPP different from PFI?
The Minister has previously told this House that the new scheme will draw on lessons learnt in the past, so could she please say what those lessons are? If they have been learnt, why did 53 academics write a letter urging the Government to abandon the proposal? Why did dozens of Labour MPs sign an early-day motion expressing grave concerns? And why have the Treasury Committee, the Public Accounts Committee, the National Audit Office, the Institute for Public Policy Research and the Institute of Economic Affairs all cast doubt over the value of money for such schemes?
No matter how Ministers dress things up, I am concerned. The Government need to publish a business case for the proposal to show how it will work in practice and demonstrate they have learnt lessons from the past. If they have, Members have no good reason to object to the amendment. It only asks Ministers to show their workings-out in full view of the House openly and transparently.
Karin Smyth
Well, what was a disaster was the Tories’ management of the capital estate pre-1997 and post-2010, if the hon. Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham wants to talk about disasters on capital planning. I could talk about this for a very long time, but I know the Committee is keen to move forward, and I addressed some of these issues in debate on a previous amendment. I am very proud of, for example, Southmead hospital in Bristol, which is one of the finest examples of a hospital in the country and was built under a PFI scheme. I received treatment there a couple of years ago, in facilities that are good for staff to work and patients to be treated in. It replaced a hospital that was falling down and in shocking condition, despite the best efforts of staff. We can see similar examples across the country.
Under the Tories’ management, and for some of the early PFI schemes under the last Labour Government, contracts were poorly negotiated. They had issues with, for example, management of inflation. We have learned lessons from that. The hon. Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham talked about some contracts, including one where, I think, her whiteboard was not working. We know what the lessons are to be learned from that, and we are doing exactly what a good Government do when they take charge—change it.
In the 14 years that the Conservatives were in power, they could have started negotiating these contracts differently at any point, but they chose not to. They chose to let the estate atrophy and fall down. That is bad for patients and the public. That is why I was proud last week to launch the Government’s capital plan, building for the future, looking forward and giving nine years of certainty for estates across all our constituencies.
Dr Prinsley
I agree with everything that the Minister has to say—what a surprise—but particularly the fact that when the new Government came in, they did something about these 40 “new” hospitals that were not full hospitals. The people of Bury St Edmunds were delighted to learn that their RAAC-affected hospital, which is tumbling down, will be one of the first to be reconstructed. We look forward to that and are grateful for the decisions made by the Government.
Karin Smyth
I thank my hon. Friend for that. Across the east of England, where we now have so many Labour MPs, everyone has been trying to rectify the mismanagement that local people have seen, particularly of the capital estate. I will not detain the Committee on the capital estate—one of my favourite subjects—for very long.
The hon. Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham is aware that the decision on neighbourhood health centres was announced in the autumn. The decision-making process was supported by a business case to examine the feasibility of developing a new model, learning the lessons of the past on public-private partnerships specifically to build neighbourhood health centres as part of our 10-year plan. That informed the decision to proceed. The business case was a strategic outline case, the purpose of which was to scope and identify the preferred way forward for a new potential model, in line with the Treasury’s five case model. We are now working with the National Infrastructure and Service Transformation Authority to develop this further, and we expect a further round of market engagement in the autumn.
I recognise the interest in making the business case available to both Houses, but that must be balanced with the need to develop an effective policy. Publication while policy development is ongoing would limit full, candid and proper deliberation. Civil servants and subject experts need to be able to engage in frank discussion of policy options to expose their merits, demerits and possible implications. Their candour in doing so would be affected by their assessment of whether the content of such discussions would be disclosed.
We are committed to building neighbourhood health centres across the country. That is what patients and the public deserve. We will obviously be mindful of public money and subject to the usual processes of the House, including the Public Accounts Committee. We will learn those lessons. We are in full discussion with NISTA. For those reasons, we are committed to developing good estate across our country. That is what our constituents deserve. I therefore ask the hon. Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham to withdraw her new clause.
Dr Johnson
For the record, I am a member of the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health and work as a consultant paediatrician at North West Anglia NHS foundation trust, which will have a new hospital. I would like to press the new clause to a vote.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
Dr Johnson
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
This new clause asks the Government to use private providers to help get waiting lists down. We are told that waiting lists are falling, but the Government’s own figures show that waiting lists are higher than they were last month, and if we look at the group of people who are waiting for admission for a procedure or operation, they are higher than they were last month, last year or indeed at the general election in 2024. There were 76,250 women waiting for gynaecological treatment at the end of July ’24, when this Labour Government took office; that rose by more than 6,000 patients to 82,623 as of May 2026. Private providers have capacity that may be able to help with that.
The deployment of private providers is about using all the resources and capacity on offer across the country to get waiting lists down. The NHS uses private providers to perform some surgeries and scans, mental health support, GPs and dentistry, but it is a sensible measure to ensure that all hands are on deck when it comes to treating patients. I look forward to hearing how the Minister can use private providers to get more patients seen more quickly as opposed to wiping them from waiting lists at record rates.
Karin Smyth
Again, I am grateful to the hon. Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham for bringing this discussion before the Committee. This new clause would require the Secretary of State to make regulations about how the NHS uses private provision to support access to treatment and reduce lists. I understand the point that she is making, but I assure her that this is an unnecessary new clause.
ICBs already can and do use private healthcare providers to offer patients treatment in their area and boost capacity to reduce lists. Our approach is pragmatic, not ideological: in the 10-year health plan, the Government committed to continuing to use private sector capacity where it is available; that is not because we favour the private sector but because we are committed to using capacity wherever it is available. Our priority is treating patients in a timely manner, not favouring one form of provider over another. Under existing legislation, patients must be offered a choice of provider for their first outpatient appointment, where the duty of choice applies. If a person’s needs are not met by local services or waiting times are high, they can use that choice to see an appropriately qualified provider.
However, we must resist the temptation to apply a one-size-fits-all approach here. ICBs are responsible for the financial sustainability, planning and strategic commissioning of services for their local populations, so they are best placed to decide how private premises should be used to meet a population’s needs. For example, high waiting times, which we obviously inherited from the Conservatives, for a particular specialty may result not from a lack of capacity but from increased demand from GP referrals. The ICB must have the flexibility to improve how advice and guidance—referral support, for instance—is working for GPs, rather than being required to wastefully spend NHS funds on increasing capacity with the private sector.
Sojan Joseph (Ashford) (Lab)
If this is put on the statute book, will it not mean that the private sector can have more and more hospitals, when we should be using them only if the NHS does not have the capacity? The private sector should be the last resort rather than a first choice.
Karin Smyth
I am slightly confused, as I suspect other Committee members are, by the Opposition’s approach to the private sector, having had a discussion in relation to the previous new clause about not using the private sector and boosting work and employment opportunities in our country. They do have a slightly odd view with regard to this. As I said, our view is very pragmatic: it is to support the treatment of patients to get waiting lists down. That is what our constituents deserve. Where capacity can be used, we want to make sure that that choice is available.
Dr Prinsley
I am confused by the Opposition referring in their new clause to a requirement to “make regulations” in this respect, as the private sector is already widely used to reduce waiting lists where appropriate. However, we must also be aware of the problem we have with overuse of private facilities. That can have an effect on the provision of NHS services, because the number of available staff is limited. I think particularly of ophthalmology services, as we have created a situation in which the overprovision of private services has disabled the provision of ophthalmology services.
Karin Smyth
That is why I was clear in outlining that ICBs have a duty to make sure that they are financially sustainable and that their planning and strategic commissioning meets the needs of their local population. They need to balance those requirements.
Under the new clause, there is a risk that the Secretary of State, by setting blanket requirements, would contravene the level playing field provisions in clause 10 of the Bill. For those reasons, I ask the hon. Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham to withdraw the new clause.
Dr Johnson
The previous use of private providers was to remove debt from the Government’s balance sheet. That is not the same as providing guidance and regulations on how to increase capacity and use the spare capacity of private providers to reduce waiting lists, which are currently rising. In response to the point made by the hon. Member for Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket, the workforce plan is important. Despite that plan being “imminent” for several weeks now, it has not been published. I will press the new clause to a vote.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
New clause 75—Transition strategy for the abolition of NHS England—
“(1) The Secretary of State must, before the abolition of NHS England takes effect, prepare and lay before Parliament a report setting out a transition strategy for the abolition of NHS England (the ‘strategy’).
(2) The strategy must—
(a) identify and map critical functions and areas of expertise currently exercised by NHS England, including clinical, operational, analytical and patient engagement capabilities;
(b) assess the risk of loss of knowledge, skills and organisational capacity arising from the abolition of NHS England;
(c) set out the steps the Secretary of State proposes to take to ensure the retention and effective transfer of such functions, expertise, knowledge and skills; and
(d) assess the likely impact of the transition on the delivery of key health programmes and services, including cancer services.
(3) The Secretary of State must, at intervals of not more than 12 months, lay before Parliament a report on the implementation of the transition strategy.
(4) A report under subsection (3) must include—
(a) progress on workforce retention;
(b) arrangements for the transfer of knowledge, expertise and institutional capability; and
(c) any identified gaps in capability and the steps being taken to address them.”
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to prepare and lay before Parliament a formal transition strategy before the abolition of NHS England, setting out how critical functions and expertise will be identified, retained and transferred. It would also require the Secretary of State to report to Parliament at least annually on the implementation of that strategy.
Amendment 37, in clause 71, page 48, line 28, at end insert—
“(3A) The Secretary of State may not make regulations under subsection (3) commencing section (1) until the conditions in subsection (3B) are met.
(3B) The conditions are that—
(a) the Secretary of State has published a document setting out the operating model for the exercise of functions by the Department of Health and Social Care following the abolition of NHS England (the ‘operating model document’); and
(b) the Secretary of State has published a plan for the management of personnel affected by the abolition of NHS England and the transfer of its functions to the Department of Health and Social Care (the ‘workforce transition plan’).
(3C) The operating model document must include—
(a) a description of how each of the functions exercised by NHS England is to be exercised following its abolition;
(b) the governance and accountability arrangements for the exercise of those functions;
(c) the organisational structure of the Department of Health and Social Care as it will operate following the abolition; and
(d) the proposed timetable for the transition.
(3D) The workforce transition plan must include—
(a) an assessment of the number of personnel whose employment is affected by the abolition of NHS England;
(b) the arrangements for the transfer, redeployment or redundancy of affected personnel; and
(c) proposals for consultation with recognised trade unions and staff representative bodies in connection with the abolition.
(3E) Regulations to commence section (1) are to be made by statutory instrument and may not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, each House of Parliament.
(3F) Before laying a draft instrument under subsection (3E), the Secretary of State must allow a period of at least 60 days beginning with the date of publication of the operating model document and the workforce transition plan (whichever is the later) before the draft instrument is laid.
(3G) A period during which Parliament is dissolved, prorogued or adjourned for more than four days are not to count towards the 60-day period in subsection (3F).”
This amendment would prevent the abolition of NHS England before the production of an operating model for the merged DHSC/NHSE and associated plan to manage personnel.
Amendment 38, in clause 71, page 48, line 28, at end insert—
“(3A) The Secretary of State may not make regulations under subsection (3) commencing section (1) until the condition in subsection (3B) has been met.
(3B) The condition is that the Secretary of State has published an impact assessment in respect of the abolition of NHS England that complies with subsection (3C) (a ‘qualifying impact assessment’).
(3C) A qualifying impact assessment must include—
(a) a quantified estimate, expressed in monetary terms, of the total transition costs of abolishing NHS England, including in particular—
(i) redundancy costs;
(ii) the costs of integrating data, digital and information technology systems;
(iii) the costs of reorganising and rehousing staff and functions; and
(iv) productivity losses during the transition period;
(b) a quantified estimate, expressed in monetary terms, of the ongoing annual costs of the restructured Department of Health and Social Care following the abolition of NHS England, including any costs falling on integrated care boards as a result of the transfer of functions to them;
(c) a quantified estimate, expressed in monetary terms, of the estimated annual savings arising from the abolition, including savings from the elimination of duplicated corporate functions and reduced administrative costs;
(d) a quantified estimate, expressed in monetary terms, of the net present value of the abolition, being the difference between the total costs under paragraphs (a) and (b) and the total benefits under paragraph (c) over a period of not less than ten years;
(e) a statement of the key assumptions underlying the estimates in paragraphs (a) to (d) and an assessment of the sensitivity of those estimates to changes in those assumptions;
(f) an assessment of the risks to the delivery of the anticipated benefits, including the risk of disruption to NHS functions during the transition period; and
(g) a statement of the methodology used to produce the estimates, including any data sources relied upon.
(3D) Before publishing a qualifying impact assessment, the Secretary of State must submit it for independent scrutiny to the Regulatory Policy Committee (or any successor body) and must publish the Committee's opinion on the assessment alongside it.
(3E) The Secretary of State must lay the qualifying impact assessment and the Committee's opinion before both Houses of Parliament.
(3F) Regulations to commence section (1) are to be made by statutory instrument and may not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, each House of Parliament.
(3G) A draft instrument under subsection (3F) may not be laid unless at least 60 sitting days have elapsed since the qualifying impact assessment was laid under subsection (3E).”
This amendment requires the Secretary of State to publish, and submit to independent scrutiny, an impact assessment on the abolition of NHS England, containing quantified cost and benefit figures, before making regulations to abolish the body.
Amendment 39, in clause 71, page 48, line 28, at end insert—
“(3A) The Secretary of State may not make regulations under subsection (3) commencing section (1) until the condition in subsection (3B) is met.
(3B) The condition is that the Secretary of State has published a plan setting out how health services provided by or under arrangements made by NHS bodies are to work alongside and be integrated with the social care system in England (the ‘health and social care integration plan’).
(3C) Before preparing the health and social care integration plan, the Secretary of State must have regard to—
(a) the recommendations made by the Independent Commission on Adult Social Care chaired by Baroness Casey of Blackstock (or any successor body undertaking that Commission’s work) in any report published by the Commission before the plan is laid; and
(b) the need to reflect any such recommendations in the content of the plan so far as they are relevant to the interface between health services and adult social care.
(3D) The health and social care integration plan must include—
(a) a description of the structural and operational arrangements for joint working between NHS bodies and local authority social care services following the abolition of NHS England;
(b) proposals for how the transfer of NHS England’s functions to the Secretary of State will affect the coordination of health and social care commissioning, including in particular the commissioning of services for people with complex needs spanning health and social care;
(c) arrangements for reducing delayed discharges from hospital attributable to the absence of suitable social care provision;
(d) proposals for how the funding flows between the NHS and the social care system, including NHS Continuing Healthcare, will be managed following the abolition;
(e) the workforce implications for the health and social care sectors arising from the abolition and the steps to be taken to address them; and
(f) a timetable for implementing the arrangements described in the plan.
(3E) The Secretary of State must lay the health and social care integration plan before both Houses of Parliament.
(3F) Regulations to commence section (1) are to be made by statutory instrument and may not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, each House of Parliament.
(3G) A draft instrument under subsection (3F) may not be laid before either House of Parliament until at least 60 sitting days have elapsed since the health and social care integration plan was laid under subsection (3E).
(3H) In this section—
‘NHS body’ has the same meaning as in the National Health Service Act 2006;
‘social care system’ means the system for the provision of care and support under the Care Act 2014 and services provided by local authorities in the exercise of their functions relating to adult social care.”
This amendment requires the Secretary of State to publish and lay before Parliament a plan setting out how health services will work alongside the social care system following the abolition of NHS England before using their powers for its abolition. The plan must address joint commissioning, funding flows (including NHS Continuing Healthcare), delayed hospital discharges, and workforce.
Dr Johnson
New clause 46 would require the Secretary of State to publish the number of staff in the Department of Health and Social Care and the number of people made redundant following the abolition of NHS England. New clause 75 would require the Secretary of State to prepare and lay before Parliament a formal transition strategy. Amendment 37 would prevent the abolition of NHS England before the production of an operating model. Amendment 38 would require the Secretary of State to publish and submit to independent scrutiny an impact assessment on the abolition of NHS England containing quantified cost and benefit figures before making regulations to abolish it.
Amendment 39 would require the Secretary of State to publish and lay before Parliament a plan setting out how health services will work alongside the social care system following the abolition of NHS England before using the powers in the Bill for abolition. The plan must address joint commissioning, funding flows, delayed hospital discharges and the workforce. The problem is essentially that Ministers marched off into a battle without a plan and continue to fight without one.
In this Committee, we have heard consistently about the number of times that things have not been thoroughly planned out and properly considered, particularly in relation to social care. I know that Members on all sides of the House are concerned about how social care will interact with the health service under the proposed new regime. In March 2025, Ministers and officials were going to work to determine what was needed, and in March 2026, they were still progressing to develop the design—12 months later, there was a change in tense but still no proper plan.
When putting the Bill before the House, the Government published an impact assessment, but where there should be numbers quantifying how much this is all going to cost us, there is simply “N/A”. How is that any way to conduct a reorganisation? That is why I tabled amendments 37, 38 and 39. They would apply the brakes until the operating model had been established by requiring the full publication of a proper impact assessment, a detailed plan of how the health service will work alongside social care, and the publication of redundancy figures. They would ensure that the Government have worked out what they are going to do before they get on and start doing it.
Karin Smyth
The Government of course recognise the importance of clarity and assurance as we undertake this significant transformation, including on how functions, governance and the workforce will operate in the future. That is essential for ensuring that our staff and other stakeholders understand the new role of the Department.
On new clause 46, we recognise the importance of transparency around departmental workforce numbers and the impact of abolishing NHS England. The Government remain committed to significantly reducing headcount across NHS England and the Department of Health and Social Care, but I put on record my thanks to all the staff and talented professionals working in both organisations; this is a difficult time for them. However, this new clause is not necessary. Workforce information is already published both monthly and through the Department’s annual report and accounts, alongside wider Government transparency publications. Placing a further reporting requirement in legislation would risk duplicating existing transparency data, so it is unnecessary to include it in the Bill.
On amendment 37, I reassure the Committee that we will consult on the proposed structure for the new Department of Health and Social Care, and that is also required under existing employment law. The structure will clearly explain what every part of the new Department will do and set out every post we think we need. The target operating model is an internal document that sets out the proposed purpose, role, governance and organisational structure of the future Department. It will be shared internally, following engagement with staff and stakeholders, including trade unions. The chair of NHS England, Dr Penny Dash, has committed to sharing it with the Health and Social Care Committee once it is finalised.
The target operating model will be used to guide detailed organisational design and will iterate over time. The proposed design of the new organisation will be subject to consultation. The target operating model does not implement changes that remain subject to parliamentary approval through this Bill.
On workforce transition, we will follow TUPE-like principles whether TUPE or any other transfer mechanism applies, in line with the Cabinet Office statement of practice on staff transfers in the public sector. That means that recognised trade unions will be formally consulted and engaged with on measures related to the transfer. No changes to contractual terms and conditions will be made without proper consultation and engagement.
We are committed to maintaining an ongoing dialogue with trade unions and staff throughout this period of change, and we are updating them as often as possible. Where appropriate, we are also committed to working with staff networks on the changes, particularly on how we can best support staff. Given those commitments, I hope that the hon. Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham agrees that placing further requirements in the Bill would be disproportionate.
On amendment 38, we agree that it is important to be transparent about the costs and benefits of this programme. The Department has been open about the initial estimate of around £1 billion of savings per year, and we published an impact assessment alongside the Bill. The detailed timing and scale of costs and savings from the programme depend on factors such as the take-up of voluntary exit and redundancy schemes, which are under way. We will continue to refine our assessment of costs and savings as the programme progresses and as we move towards the abolition of NHS England. We will continue to be open about those figures.
The savings will support continued investment in frontline services. The timescales set out in the amendment would risk delaying the abolition of NHS England and, as a result, would delay the transfer of savings to frontline services and the stability and certainty we need for our staff.
On amendment 39, the Government are committed to supporting the integration of health and social care so that people experience more joined-up, person-centred care. Key planning frameworks, including for the better care fund and for neighbourhood health, already stress the critical importance of strong join-up and integration. We expect those frameworks to continue to guide the health and care system following the abolition of NHS England. Most importantly of all, we are committed to developing neighbourhood health approaches as an essential part of reforming the health and care system. That approach will deliver more integrated services across health, local government and wider partners, including the voluntary and community sector.
The Bill simplifies existing complex legal frameworks to make collaboration easier and emphasises the role of health and wellbeing boards as a focal point for that collaboration. However, partnership and collaboration take many forms depending on local circumstances, and they cannot simply be prescribed through a centrally developed plan. Instead, we should encourage areas to develop effective, productive relationships in the interests of the people they serve. We have discussed that in this Committee, and hon. Members from all parties have a key role to play there.
Turning to new clause 75, we absolutely recognise the need to ensure that critical functions, expertise and organisational capability are identified, retained and effectively transferred during this period of change. That is essential to maintaining continuity of services and supporting the delivery of key health programmes, including vital services such as cancer care.
I reassure the Committee that that work is already well under way. We are carefully mapping all areas of current activity across NHS England, assessing what capabilities we need to deliver them in future and putting processes in place to support the retention and transfer of expertise. This includes the phased approach we are taking to workforce changes, alongside a robust and consistently applied process for voluntary redundancies and voluntary exits, to minimise disruption and protect critical skills. We are also committed to ongoing monitoring and oversight through the transition, and as part of our programme of governance, there is ongoing consideration of skill retention, knowledge transfer and organisational capability, and we will take action where gaps are identified.
As drafted, the new clause would introduce a new statutory requirement to produce and lay before Parliament a formal transition strategy before the abolition of NHS England and the implementation of transfer schemes, alongside new ongoing reporting obligations. While well-intentioned, it would add another unnecessary step into what is already a complex and carefully sequenced programme. It would reduce the flexibility needed to adapt workforce organisational decisions as the transformation progresses. For those reasons, the Government believe that the objectives of the new clause are already being delivered through existing programme arrangements, without the need to place further requirements in the Bill.
Dr Johnson
I listened carefully to what the Minister said, but I do not know where the Government have transparently published all these numbers and calculations. A lot of parliamentary questions have been asked on the detail of this transition, so I think it is important that the detail is published so we can see it, and that the detail is planned, before the abolition process takes place. I therefore want to press the new clause to a vote.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
Dr Johnson
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
The new clause would require the Secretary of State to publish a plan for securing the provision of universal fracture liaison services across England. As we get older, our bone density naturally decreases, increasing the risk of bone fractures and possibly osteoporosis, which affects 3.5 million people across the UK.
Fracture liaison services identify people aged 50 or over who have broken a bone, and they provide treatment to reduce the risk of further debilitating fractures. Of those over 50, one in two women and one in five men will break a bone because of osteoporosis. Heartbreakingly, 2,000 people die each year from preventable fractures. When the former Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Ilford North (Wes Streeting), claimed that delivering universal fracture liaison services would be one of his first priorities if elected to Government, many people hoped to see this happen, but it has not.
The previous Conservative Government began rolling out fracture liaison services, and it is an indicator of just how little progress the current Government have made that 97% of today’s fracture liaison services were delivered by the Conservatives. What have the Labour Government been doing? What is more, one in two NHS trusts, following freedom of information requests, tell me that they have no fracture liaison service at all, which is quite literally an accident waiting to happen. I am very grateful to the Royal Osteoporosis Society for its campaigning on this issue. By its calculations, at the current rate of delivery, it will take 38 years for the Government to deliver universal fracture liaison services, which is obviously far too slow.
We have tabled the new clause because the Government need a plan. The former puppeteer of this Government, Morgan McSweeney, made it clear that Labour did not have a plan for government. The new clause would require the Secretary of State to deliver a plan within 90 days, not just to secure the provision of universal fracture liaison services but to deliver on his predecessor’s very clear and very deliberate promise to do so.
The Minister in the other place was asked whether an implementation plan for fracture liaison services was needed. The answer was, effectively, no. What is the view of the Minister before us in Committee? There are so many critical questions in this area that have no answers and that a plan would and should address. What are the Minister’s annual milestones for achieving universal access to fracture liaison services by 2030? How will the Minister’s plans to cut ICB budgets by 50% impact that key promise? An important question on the promise is whether the Minister’s plans to merge ICBs mean that fewer services will now be delivered. How will that impact patients? What extra workforce, diagnostic and NHS estates capacity is required to deliver it?
Yet again, as so often with this Government, we are left with a headline-grabbing promise with no plan behind it. The consequence is that more than 40,000 people are predicted to die from hip fractures that could have been prevented through timely national implementation.
Dr Prinsley
I am listening carefully to what the hon. Member, who is a medical colleague of mine, has to say. Although I think that a fracture liaison service is an excellent idea, there are many, many aspects of medical care that require careful attention, such as the management of people with hearing loss—my own field—or the assessment of people with chronic renal failure. Does the shadow Minister believe that all aspects of each individual disease category require some sort of primary legislation?
Dr Johnson
Not necessarily, no, but this one does, because the Government clearly made a promise before the election. The former Secretary of State was clear that it would be one of his first acts—that is what he said—and it has not happened, so in this case we need to hold the Government to account. It is our job to hold them to account on their promises, and I am afraid that they are failing on this one.
To sum up, the Government need to get their act together, because otherwise more and more vulnerable people will come to unnecessary and potentially fatal harm. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s plans to accelerate the delivery of the Government’s promise—and fast.
Gregory Stafford (Farnham and Bordon) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Dr Huq. I welcome the Minister back from her son’s graduation —I hope it went well.
I rise to state my support for new clause 47, which would require the Secretary of State to publish a clear roll-out plan for fracture liaison services across England and report annually to Parliament on progress towards universal coverage by 2030. It is not about creating a new target, because the target already exists: both this Government and the previous Government committed to achieving 100% fracture liaison service coverage by 2030. The question before us, as proposed by the shadow Minister, is simple: how will that promise be delivered, and how will Parliament know whether meaningful progress is being made?
Fracture liaison services are one of the most evidence-based interventions in osteoporosis care. They systematically identify people aged over 50 who suffer a fragility fracture; assess their bone health; initiate treatment where appropriate; and monitor patients to reduce the risk of subsequent fractures. Given that around half of patients who sustain a hip fracture have previously broken another bone, those services represent a vital opportunity to intervene before a life-changing injury occurs. The human cost is considerable. Osteoporosis affects millions of people, particularly older women, and fragility fractures can result in a loss of independence, reduced mobility, social isolation and significant pressure on health and social care services. The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence estimates that around 180,000 fractures each year in England and Wales are attributable to osteoporosis.
There is also a compelling economic case: the Royal Osteoporosis Society estimates that investing around £30 million in fracture liaison services could prevent approximately 74,000 fractures over five years, including 31,000 hip fractures, saving the NHS around £665 million and freeing up some 750,000 bed days. Few preventive interventions offer that combination of better patient outcomes and substantial savings for the NHS.
The Government frequently point to their commitment to universal coverage by 2030, but as the shadow Minister pointed out, progress has been achingly slow. When the Secretary of State appeared before the Health and Social Care Committee last week, I questioned him on that issue directly. While he confirmed that the Department remains committed to meeting that 2030 target, which was first established by the previous Conservative Government, no plan—or indication of when a plan would come—was given. A commitment alone is not a delivery plan.
There are also growing concerns that the Government have overstated the progress that has already been made. The Royal Osteoporosis Society has confirmed that more than 97% of the fracture liaison services counted by the current Government were already in place before the change of Government. So, rather than that representing any significant expansion in national coverage, this Government have gone slow. I think it is therefore very reasonable—to answer the question from the hon. Member for Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket—for Parliament to be entitled to ask what additional progress has actually been made since the commitment was reaffirmed.
New clause 47 would also require the Secretary of State to publish an assessment of access in every integrated care board area. It would also require annual milestones, because, at present, there is no publicly available timetable showing where the services will be established, or which areas will be prioritised or progressed between now and 2030.
Crucially, the new clause would require the Government to set out how integrated care boards will actually be supported. Ministers rightly point out that fracture liaison services are commissioned locally by integrated care boards, but if the responsibility for delivery rests locally while responsibility for national targets rests with central Government, there clearly needs to be a well-thought-through national framework explaining how those boards will be supported through funding, guidance, workforce planning and accountability.
This is, therefore, a straightforward request for transparency, accountability and, most importantly, delivery. If Ministers are committed to achieving this by 2030, they should have absolutely no objection to publishing a plan that shows how they intend to get there. For those reasons, I support the new clause.
Karin Smyth
I will partly agree with the Opposition to start off with: they are absolutely right that osteoporosis is a really important issue, particularly for older women. The hon. Member for Farnham and Bordon outlined some of the economic case, but crucially, it is a strong health issue. I worked and campaigned on this issue in opposition myself, because it predominantly affects older women. It also very much fits into our 10-year health plan regarding prevention. That is why we have also, for example, increased access to DEXA—dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry—scanners.
It is rather disappointing, though, for a subject on which there is obviously so much agreement to be used as a political back-and-forth here today. Let me be clear. I think some of the comments show why some of this has got a bit confused, including for people who genuinely care about this rather than just wanting to make it a political issue. Again, it is entirely the Opposition’s job to oppose the Government, and I do not have any problem with that, but there is a serious issue here about how this is monitored.
We are absolutely committed to having coverage across the country by 2030, as the Secretary of State has recently said. That is why we are rolling out more DEXA scanners and so on, but with the clustering of ICBs, 92% of the country is now covered across those clusters.
Karin Smyth
That is why it is important that we look at what is actually happening on the ground and how we are moving forward. We are committed to supporting this cohort, and particularly those patients for whom this condition is largely preventable. Care closer to home, based around our 10-year plan, is absolutely the right way to go about that.
Karin Smyth
I was going to outline the points, but I am happy to give way if the hon. Lady wants.
Dr Johnson
Can the Minister be clear on the point about ICBs? There is a concern that, where there are perhaps three ICBs, one of which has a service and two of which do not, and they merge together, the Government then say, “Aha! This ICB area now has coverage,” but that is for part of it, not all of it. What is important for a universal service is that it is available to all.
Karin Smyth
Again, the hon. Lady has intervened, but that is exactly my point. There is a danger here of the Conservative party focusing on a target or number and totally missing the point, which is to have good, locally available services accessible to this predominantly female and predominantly older population through our 10-year health plan. If one counts the new clustered ICBs in that target, 92% of areas are covered.
We want to get to the heart of this issue. Integrated care boards are the commissioners of local health services and remain best placed to make decisions according to local need. Commissioning these services at a local rather than national level—which is the entire thrust of our 10-year health plan, and indeed this Bill—means that ICBs are best placed to commission holistic, integrated care that wraps around the patient’s need, where the patient is.
We have been very clear in our 10-year health plan, and indeed in this Bill, that we are not expecting patients to fit in with models of care that have been devised over a period of time and in hospitals that are largely located far from their homes. We are looking at a close-to-home service and building models of care around peoples’ needs. A legislative requirement for a national implementation plan would cut across that responsibility, undermining local ability to tailor services to patient needs and causing confusion for delivery. That is why we do not think the new clause is necessary.
The renewed women’s health strategy sets an expectation that ICBs prioritise community-based models when commissioning new fracture prevention services. The Department will continue to work closely with NHS England and ICBs to explore a range of options that provide better quality, and better access to, important preventive services. I therefore ask the shadow Minister to withdraw the motion.
Dr Johnson
I am afraid I am not reassured at all. The Minister seems to be saying that the ICBs will do it—the same ICBs where she is cutting their budgets, making them change the board and making them merge with each other all at the same time. The target is behind schedule and it is important that we hold the Government to account on it. Therefore, I will press new clause 47 to a vote.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
New clause 53—Cancer treatment: waiting times—
“(1) Within six months beginning on the day on which this Act is passed, the Secretary of State must make provision for every patient to have access to cancer treatment within 62 days following referral.
(2) The Secretary of State must establish a scheme to support NHS hospital trusts in meeting the requirement under subsection (1).
(3) As part of the scheme, the Secretary of State must expand the capacity of the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency.
(4) The Secretary of State must make an annual statement to Parliament on progress on meeting the requirement under subsection (1).
(5) Any statement made under subsection (4) should be made as close as reasonably practicable to 4 February.”
This new clause gives patients a right to start cancer treatment within 62 days of referral and requires the Secretary of State to establish a scheme to deliver this. It also requires the Secretary of State to update the House on progress against the target on/around the time of World Cancer Day.
New clause 54—Cancer Survival Research—
“(1) Within 12 months beginning on the day on which this Act is passed, the Secretary of State must by regulations establish a Cancer Survival Research Programme.
(2) Regulations under this section must—
(a) require government co-ordination and funding for research into cancers with a five-year survival rate below 20%, and
(b) establish a fellowship programme for foreign academics in cancer research.
(3) Any programme established under paragraph 2(b) must make provision to waive visa fees for entry into the UK for participating academics.
(4) Regulations under this section are subject to the affirmative procedure.”
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to introduce regulations requiring the government to coordinate research into cancers with the lowest survival rate.
New clause 65—National framework on radiotherapy treatment
“(1) Within six months of the passage of this Act, Secretary of State must publish and maintain a national framework for improving access to radiotherapy services in England.
(2) The framework must include minimum standards, established by the Secretary of State, against which—
(a) integrated care boards must measure and report their investment in, and delivery of, radiotherapy services, and
(b) the Secretary of State must assess the performance of integrated care boards.
(3) The minimum standards under subsection (2) must include standards regarding—
(a) waiting times for radiotherapy (including time to definitive treatment),
(b) patient travel times to radiotherapy services,
(c) the number of cancer patients receiving radiotherapy and the quality of such radiotherapy,
(d) the age, capability and replacement needs of radiotherapy equipment,
(e) access to modern radiotherapy techniques and technologies,
(f) access to treatments recommended by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence,
(g) radiotherapy treatment capacity against current and projected population needs,
(h) variation in access to radiotherapy services between integrated care board areas,
(i) workforce capacity to deliver radiotherapy treatment,
(j) the level of investment in radiotherapy services and the extent to which such investment reflects clinical need.
(4) For the purposes of subsection (3)(d) the Secretary of State must set a maximum proportion of linear accelerators that are more than 10 years old or otherwise beyond the recommended replacement age.
(5) Each integrated care board must publish an annual report on its performance against the minimum standards in the framework.
(6) Where an integrated care board fails to meet at least one of minimum standards it must publish a remedial action plan setting out the steps it will take to achieve compliance.
(7) Before publishing or revising the framework, the Secretary of State must consult all persons with clinical, technical, operational and patient expertise in radiotherapy the Secretary of State considers appropriate.
(8) The Secretary of State must lay before Parliament, at least once in each financial year, a report on the implementation of the framework.”
New clause 100—Single patient record: review of flagging for early cancer diagnosis—
“(1) Within 12 months of the day on which this Act is passed, the Secretary of State must lay before both Houses of Parliament a report on the feasibility of using patient records held by the health service to indicate, to a person providing health care to a patient, cases in which a patient has presented symptoms on more than one occasion which may indicate the presence of cancer.
(2) The report under subsection (1) must consider—
(a) the potential for such indication to support early diagnosis of cancer in patients aged under 50 years of age, and
(b) any implications of such an indication requirement for clinical responsibility and patient safety.
(3) In preparing the report the Secretary of State must consult—
(a) NICE, and
(b) any other persons as the Secretary of State considers appropriate.”
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to report on the feasibility of using patient records held by the health service to indicate, to a person providing health care to a patient, cases in which a patient has presented symptoms on more than one occasion which may indicate the presence of cancer.
Dr Johnson
New clause 48 would require the Secretary of State to
“publish and maintain a national framework for improving access to radiotherapy services in England.”
One in four people can expect to need radiotherapy in their lives. That is a lot of people who will need consultation, assessment, pre-treatment planning and treatment delivery. Data published a few years ago showed that Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland have more linear accelerator machines per million people than in England. Can the Minister confirm whether that is still the case? Last year, Radiotherapy UK had research indicating that more than 60,000 cancer patients are not getting the radiotherapy they need and I know particular areas of the country are struggling. Can the Minister provide an update on the roll-out of the new LINAC machines at 28 hospitals, which she spoke about in May 2025?
We were also told that by March 2027, up to 27,500 additional treatments will be delivered. Can the Minister share some information on how that will be achieved? The Labour Government have now been in power for two years. They have raised taxes by more than £60 billion and they do not have much to show for it. They have not produced a workforce plan. They have said that one will be imminent; can the Minister confirm whether it will be published today before we break for the recess? Is the intention to publish it during the recess or will we have to wait until the autumn?
There is a 31% shortfall in clinical radiologists. New clause 48 essentially requires the publication and maintenance of
“a national framework for improving access to radiotherapy services”.
This Government have essentially shown that if a requirement is not in legislation, plans just get delayed, diminished and disowned, but patients cannot afford to wait any longer.
Helen Morgan
I rise to speak to new clauses 53 and 54, tabled in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Epsom and Ewell (Helen Maguire), and new clause 65, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland and Lonsdale (Tim Farron).
New clause 53 would give patients a right to start cancer treatment within 62 days of referral and require the Secretary of State to establish a scheme to deliver that. It would also require the Secretary of State to update the House on progress against the target on or around the time of World Cancer Day. New clause 54 would require the Secretary of State to introduce regulations requiring the Government to co-ordinate research into cancers with the lowest survival rate.
Karin Smyth
This is an important debate, as many of them are today. I understand that waiting for a cancer diagnosis, as I have had to do myself, is very stressful. The national cancer plan sets out how the Government will change that experience for patients and their families. Crucially, the plan is driven by evidence and shaped by the voices of more than 11,000 patients, charities and professionals who responded to our call for evidence.
The plan covers the entirety of the pathway, from referral and diagnosis to treatment and ongoing care, as well as prevention and research and innovation, and tackles the key issues raised in the new clauses. Delivery of the plan will be monitored by the national cancer board, with an independent co-chair reporting to the Department.
On new clauses 48 and 65, let me be clear that improving access to high-quality radiotherapy services is a priority for the Government, and one that we are already delivering. In May last year we announced the roll-out of new linear accelerator machines, we have committed to meeting all cancer waiting time targets by the end of this Parliament, and timely access to radiotherapy is central to the 31-day and 62-day treatment standards. We will go further by reviewing the targets, once they have been met, to consider whether they should be strengthened. That will include considering what data is needed to support improved performance. A separate statutory framework would duplicate the established performance regime.
We are well aware that radiotherapy performance is below that of other treatment types, as the hon. Member for North Shropshire outlined. We are also aware of the serious variation between different parts of the country. We have at our disposal the Getting It Right First Time programme and national interventions to address those issues at a local level. The national cancer plan also tackles unwarranted variation through robust national data and oversight from the national cancer board, while ensuring that service configuration remains clinically led.
We have committed to improving the productivity of radiotherapy services, including by using artificial intelligence to streamline treatment. We will make a £70 million investment in state-of-the-art radiotherapy machines by 2027 through a managed national replacement programme. Imposing fixed legislative limits on the age profile of equipment would reduce the flexibility required to manage that programme effectively. Additionally, the NHS is already under a clear statutory duty to fund NICE-recommended interventions, supported by national commissioning guidance. Additional minimum standards would duplicate those safeguards without improving outcomes.
New clause 48 also suggests metrics to track radiotherapy performance. I assure the hon. Member for North Shropshire that high-quality and detailed data already helps us to understand emerging issues and to monitor performance. The National Disease Registration Service in NHS England collects diagnosis, treatment and outcome data on cancer patients in England. It routinely reports incidence, prevalence, survival, routes to diagnosis and treatment data on all cancers. NHS England also publishes monthly radiotherapy performance data.
On workforce capacity, we are already seeing increases in key roles, including clinical oncology doctors and radiologists, and the Getting It Right First Time review of radiotherapy services will report later this year. The new clauses risk duplicating efforts already in train to improve the oversight of radiotherapy services, workforce, data quality and coverage, and would create additional bureaucracy and divert resources away from patient care.
I turn to new clause 53. Improving performance against cancer waiting standards is a priority for this Government. We have made year-on-year progress with cancer waiting times, but we know that there is some way to go. Cancer incidence is about 15% higher than when the 62-day standard was last met, in late 2015. There are more than 200 distinct cancer types, and each is complex. The cancer waiting time targets, including the 62-day referral-to-treatment target, are not set at 100% for several reasons, including patient choice, clinical guidelines and the complexity of diagnosis and treatment planning. That means that not every patient can or should be treated within the waiting time standard. We therefore do not think the new clause is appropriate.
Change, including improvements to the cancer pathway and to tackle variation in performance, cannot be delivered overnight. The national cancer plan sets out the concrete actions that we are taking to get there. We have already demonstrated our commitment to transforming diagnostic services by investing £2.3 billion in diagnostic capacity. That will support us in achieving the 62-day standard through faster diagnosis. We recognise that the provision of cancer services, including treatment, varies across the country. The national cancer plan addresses how to tackle that variation.
To accelerate breakthroughs in cancer treatments, we will explore innovative procurement methods. That will aim to stimulate the development of new diagnostic tests, targeted therapies and more effective treatment for rare cancers, ensuring that the NHS remains at the forefront of medical innovation.
We believe that new clause 54, in the name of the hon. Member for North Shropshire, is unnecessary because the Department already has the National Institute for Health and Care Research and the national cancer plan underpinning its cancer research strategy. The Department invests about £1.8 billion each year on research through the NIHR. Cancer is a major area of its spending, at £141.6 million in 2024-25, reflecting the fact that it is a high priority. The NIHR does not usually ringfence funds for research in specific conditions; it welcomes funding applications for research into any aspect of human health and care, including cancer. Research is funded through open and fair competition and peer review to ensure that the highest-quality proposals most likely to deliver real impact for patients are funded without imposing financial targets or limits.
The national cancer plan is the first plan to have a dedicated chapter on rare cancers, which is important to many hon. Members across the House, including my hon. Friend the Member for Blaydon and Consett, who has done great work. The plan includes a commitment to make progress on rare cancers as one of six key research priorities to tackle stubbornly low survival rates. Our aim is to be in the top quartile across 28 countries for survival of 14 rare and less common cancers. Through the NIHR, the Department is the largest funder of clinical academic training. The NIHR plays a key role in attracting training and supporting the best clinical academic researchers, providing comprehensive research career pathways for clinicians across all career stages, from undergraduate level through to professional appointments.
New clause 100 would require the Department to publish a report on the feasibility of using data in patient records to flag symptoms. I understand the concerns behind it. We fully support using the single patient record and other data to improve cancer care and diagnosis, but we have largely covered the issues raised by the new clause in the cancer plan. We understand that there are concerns in some areas. The Government have introduced Jess’s rule, which instructs GPs to rethink a diagnosis if a patient presents with the same symptoms. That followed a campaign on behalf of the family of Jessica Brady, who tragically died after symptoms of her cancer were not recognised. The single patient record will give clinicians timely access to a single trusted record, which is why it is such an important part of the Bill. We envisage that the Bill, together with the cancer plan, will enable more personalised insight into cancer risk, for example, through the NHS app. For those reasons, we do not think the new clause is necessary.
Dr Johnson
If I heard the Minister correctly, she said that the ICBs would provide NICE-approved treatment, which they have to do within 90 days at the moment. At an earlier sitting, we debated an amendment tabled by the Minister that would enable the Secretary of State to delay the provision of NICE-approved treatment, which was agreed to. I am not quite sure how that is congruous, but in either case we would like to press new clause 48 to a vote.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
Dr Johnson
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
I will be brief, because we have a lot to get through. The new clause would require the Government to produce a modern service framework for respiratory disease within 18 months and, in essence, to make a plan for providing and improving treatment for those with respiratory disease. The previous Government had a major conditions strategy, which looked at the six major causes of ill health, one of which was respiratory disease. This Government paused that when they came into office to consider their own plans, but have not responded with a plan for respiratory disease in any detail. The new clause would require them to do so.
Karin Smyth
I am grateful to the hon. Member for bringing another important disease to the attention of the Committee. I agree that modern service frameworks are important tools for improving patient care. They sit at the heart of our 10-year health plan, enabling a step change in both service quality and delivery. That is why we are prioritising making rapid progress on them. The first two MSFs, on sepsis and cardiovascular disease, will be published shortly, and a further four are in development. Given the momentum, it is clear that primary legislation is not needed to drive the development of MSFs; instead, we have established a robust, expert-led process.
Liz Twist (Blaydon and Consett) (Lab)
I should declare that I am an officer of the all-party parliamentary group for respiratory health. Clearly, a modern service framework is important, certainly for a constituency such as mine in the north-east that has a lot of respiratory health problems, but as the Minister said, we need action rather than legislative change.
Karin Smyth
Like my hon. Friend’s constituency, my constituency of Bristol South has a large tobacco industry legacy, and it is crucial to address respiratory disease in a way that looks at the whole person.
Dr Prinsley
Does the Minister agree that the single most effective thing that we have done for public health since we were elected is to get the Tobacco and Vapes Act 2026 passed? The gradual abolition of cigarette smoking will save more lives than anything else we could conceivably do in politics.
Karin Smyth
My hon. Friend tempts me to go down the path that we went down in another Committee. I recognise that the Tobacco and Vapes Bill took a long time to come through Parliament, despite having been started by the Conservatives under the right hon. Member for Richmond and Northallerton (Rishi Sunak). It faced a lot of opposition, but we are absolutely clear that that is the single most beneficial piece of work. The hon. Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham asked me about the future, in terms of vape shops and so on, and I have corresponded back to her on that issue.
Instead of what is proposed in new clause 49, we have established a robust, expert-led process. The national quality board will assess all proposals for new MSFs against a clear set of criteria, ensuring that we prioritise those areas where an MSF will deliver the greatest impact for patients. Alongside developing the first wave of MSFs, we are further strengthening the process, including by setting out a clear and consistent approach for assessing future proposals. Embedding an MSF in respiratory health in primary legislation would risk limiting that flexibility, rather than strengthening our ability to improve care, as my hon. Friends the Members for Blaydon and Consett and for Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket have outlined, by taking the action that is so necessary to help and support people with respiratory disease.
Dr Johnson
The Minister talks about momentum, but as I understand it, there is a severe mental illness MSF, for which timelines are to be published in due course; a sepsis MSF that was expected in the spring but is now anticipated in the summer; a frailty and dementia MSF expected sometime this year; a palliative care MSF that was published in June as an interim update, but will not be complete until the autumn; and a cardiovascular MSF. I do not see very much momentum there, given that the Government have been in office for two years.
Karin Smyth
It is a lot faster than the 14 years in which it was not done under the Conservatives.
Dr Johnson
Actually, there were plans, changes and improvements in respiratory care. One of the more obvious ones for lung cancer was the start of the lung cancer screening programme. I do not think the Government have the momentum and vigour that is required. Of course, they have also paused the long-term conditions strategy, which was already written and would have delivered. This is important, and we will press new clause 49 to a vote.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
Dr Johnson
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
The new clause would require the Secretary of State to produce a delivery plan for the transformative technology commitments in the 10-year plan. The 10-year plan took a lot of people a year to write, and there is plenty of ambition in it, but so far the delivery is rather suspect. The Government are right to say that technology can be game-changing, but it is one thing to ask civil servants and special advisers to draw up a grand plan and a nice brochure, and another to actually deliver on those ambitions. The Labour party came into government without a plan, and we are about to have a new Prime Minister but we do not know what his plan is, or even if he has one, either.
We have seen IT outages take down health systems, hospitals fail to communicate critical information after patients are discharged, and warm weather take down MRI scanners and radiotherapy machines. The new clause would require the Secretary of State to produce a delivery plan for the transformative technology commitments in the 10-year health plan, and would provide a clear road map for data quality and interoperability, artificial intelligence, genomics and predictive analytics, wearables, and robotics. Let us be clear: the Opposition support introducing new technology to make the NHS more efficient and improve patient care, but we need clarity from the Government on how they will do that.
Ordered, That the debate be now adjourned.—(Emma Foody.)
Health Bill (Seventeenth sitting)
Thursday 16th July 2026
(3 weeks, 6 days ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Health Bill 2026-27 View all Health Bill 2026-27 Debates Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 16 July 2026 - (16 Jul 2026)
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 4 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 1 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 1 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 4 / Noes: 8 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 2 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 1 / Noes: 13 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 4 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 4 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 4 / Noes: 10 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 5 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 5 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 4 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 5 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 5 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 5 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 4 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 4 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 5 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 4 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 4 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 5 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 4 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 4 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 4 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 5 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Minister for Secondary Care (Karin Smyth)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Lewell. As the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham, said before the break, technology is a game changer. It is a key enabler of our 10-year health plan and a modern NHS. This new clause follows the plan’s five big bets, the transformative technologies key to NHS improvement: data to deliver impact; AI to drive patient power and productivity; genomics and predictive analytics for pre-emptive personalised care; wearables to make care real-time; and robotics to support precision. To require those diverse areas to be subject to a cohort of plans to be laid before Parliament, and to make them subject to perpetual monitoring by Parliament, would be to legislate for micromanagement. One of the priorities of tech delivery is that it needs to be agile. The new clause would inhibit that.
Parliament does not usually have a role in overseeing delivery plans for specific elements of NHS technology. Adding in new reporting structures is unnecessary bureaucracy that would slow down delivery of the technologies and their impact on patients. In some areas, we already have arrangements in place to underpin delivery, via legislation approved by Parliament. The Health and Care Act 2022, the Data (Use and Access) Act 2025 and related legislation have established a framework for mandatory information standards, which can set the technical and data requirements to ensure interoperability. Along with our 10-year plan, our ambition to be the most artificial intelligence-enabled healthcare system in the world by 2035 and our commitment to an AI road map, that means that the new clause is unnecessary. I therefore ask the hon. Member to withdraw the motion.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
Dr Caroline Johnson (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
The new clause is a probing amendment. The aim is to press the Government to explain why the Bill does not include provisions to implement statutory regulation of NHS management, as they had said they would, and to commit to a timetable for bringing the regulations they promised into force.
I am an NHS consultant paediatrician and am regulated as such by the General Medical Council. The GMC regulates doctors, the Nursing and Midwifery Council regulates nurses and midwives, and different bodies represent other professionals in the health service—but not managers. The Government said that there would be such a register. I know that there are many excellent managers—the Minister was one—but as in every profession, bad apples need to be identified and managed appropriately.
The Times has reported that senior bosses at Leeds teaching hospital NHS trust asked consultants and nurses to work in ways that lie outside the national service recommendations. We have also heard from Donna Ockenden that of the 66 former senior staff members in Nottingham she approached, only 35 agreed to be interviewed. The former Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, the right hon. Member for Ilford North (Wes Streeting), has said that he finds it
“unconscionable that people who worked for the NHS would deny them”—
the families—
“an honest account of what went wrong”.
Establishing a register would be the first step in ensuring that bad apples can be held to account. Those who bully staff, cover up problems, endanger patients or misappropriate funds should not be allowed to fail upwards. The NHS benefits from having outside experience, including from the private sector and the armed forces, so I am looking not for full occupational licensing, but simply for a register of those who are not suitable to be appointed. We should not see managers going from one trust to another and another after they fail at the first. I should finish by declaring that I worked at Nottingham University hospitals NHS trust during late 2012 and early 2013.
Karin Smyth
May I put on record my thanks to all the excellent managers in the NHS? I am not sure whether I raised the bar, as the hon. Lady said, but it was a great career and one that I enjoyed very much. It is a difficult job, and we want to support managers in future. We cannot deliver our 10-year health plan without them. That is one of the reasons why we have already established a leadership college to support their development, as we committed to doing.
Dr Peter Prinsley (Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket) (Lab)
Does the Minister agree that managers in the NHS sometimes get a very bad press from the medical profession? I believe that to be wholly unjustified.
Karin Smyth
I thank my hon. Friend and the shadow Minister for their comments about NHS managers. I agree that they often get a bad press, and often from politicians as well. We cannot run the health service without both clinically and non-clinically trained managers, so we need to ensure that they have the right support to do their difficult job. My experience is that when the partnership with clinicians works well, it is really powerful. I have certainly learned a lot from working with some fantastic clinicians in my career.
We are absolutely committed to introducing a statutory barring system. We will do that by introducing secondary legislation within this Parliament to enable the Health and Care Professions Council to operate that barring system. We intend to do so as part of the planned secondary legislation to modernise the framework that governs the Health and Care Professions Council.
Changes to this legislation are subject to a statutory three-month consultation period, in addition to which this legislation will be novel and complex. It will require extensive stakeholder engagement to ensure that we develop a barring system that is proportionate and operates efficiently alongside existing frameworks, codes of practice and other regulation governing the work of NHS senior leaders. For those reasons, a 12-month timeline to bring forward the section 60 order is unfeasible. The new clause also sets out prescriptive duties on the content of the section 60 order; we would not wish to pre-empt the outcome of detailed policy development and consultation.
I welcome the support of the hon. Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham for the broad programme of initiatives to professionalise and increase the accountability of managers and leaders in the NHS. Although we do not agree that it would be proportionate to set a requirement in primary legislation to lay before Parliament a timetable to which those measures will be delivered, officials in the Department of Health and Social Care and in NHS England are already working in partnership with organisations across the health sector and will set out more on the individual timelines in due course. For those reasons, I ask the hon. Member to withdraw her new clause.
Dr Johnson
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause 52
Access to dental provision: Dental deserts
“(1) Within six months beginning on the day on which this Act is passed, the Secretary of State must establish a scheme to improve access to dental provision (‘the Scheme’).
(2) The purpose of the scheme is to end dental deserts.
(3) A dental desert is defined as any local authority area with fewer than ten active dental practices per 100,000 people.
(4) The scheme must make provision to support integrated care boards to—
(a) guarantee emergency access to an NHS dentist,
(b) provide free dental checks up for—
(i) children,
(ii) mothers within one year of having given birth,
(iii) pregnant women, and
(iv) low-income households, and
(c) guarantee dental appointments for persons commencing—
(i) surgery,
(ii) chemotherapy, or
(iii) transplant procedures.
(5) The Secretary of State must, before publishing the scheme, issue a reformed dental contract.
(6) The Secretary of State must, within six months of the establishment of the scheme, publish a dental workforce plan to support delivery of the scheme.”—(Helen Morgan.)
This new clause would establish a scheme to support integrated care boards to end dental deserts.
Brought up, and read the First time.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
Helen Morgan (North Shropshire) (LD)
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
New clause 58—Inquiry into women’s health outcomes—
“(1) The Secretary of State must, within six months beginning on the day on which this Act is passed, commission an independent inquiry into women’s health provision and outcomes in England.
(2) Any inquiry established under subsection (1) must consider—
(a) the causes of—
(i) poorer health outcomes, and
(ii) disparities in patient safety
for women,
(b) the effectiveness of existing commissioning arrangements in meeting the needs of women, and
(c) recommendations to assist the Secretary of State in discharging the duty to reduce inequalities in health outcomes under section 1C of the National Health Service Act 2006.
(3) The Secretary of State must lay a report on the findings of the inquiry before Parliament within the period of 12 months beginning with the day on which this Act is passed.”
This new clause would establish an inquiry into the poorer health outcomes faced by women.
New clause 104—Implementation of the Women’s Health Strategy—
“(1) The Secretary of State must, within 90 days of the date on which this Act receives Royal Assent, publish a women's health implementation plan (the ‘implementation plan’) setting out how the commitments in the document entitled ‘The Renewed Women's Health Strategy for England’ published on 15 April 2026 (or any successor document) will be delivered.
(2) The implementation plan must include, in particular—
(a) a timetable for delivering simpler access to long-acting reversible contraception (LARC);
(b) a trajectory for reducing the gynaecology waiting list and for reducing average diagnosis times for endometriosis;
(c) a plan for establishing the regional specialist centres for group-based women's health pathways, including contraception, heavy periods, uro-gynaecology and menopause; and
(d) measurable targets and milestones for each commitment in the strategy, including a baseline and timetable for delivery.
(3) The Secretary of State must lay the implementation plan before Parliament on the day it is published.
(4) In preparing the implementation plan, the Secretary of State must consult—
(a) the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists,
(b) the Faculty of Sexual and Reproductive Healthcare, and
(c) patient organisations representing women affected by the conditions addressed by the strategy.”
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to publish a women's health implementation plan setting out how the commitments in the document entitled “The Renewed Women’s Health Strategy for England” will be delivered.
Helen Morgan
New clause 57 would ensure that the average waiting time for diagnosis and treatment for elective conditions for women’s health issues does not exceed the average waiting time for wider NHS elective treatment. New clause 58 would establish an inquiry into the poorer health outcomes that women face.
In communities up and down the country, we have seen the devastating toll taken by the various and sustained failures to invest in and deliver better women’s health. Vital services remain understaffed and underfunded, while women and girls are going without the care they need. In 2022, we welcomed the first women’s health strategy, which promised to
“listen more carefully to women, close gaps in care, improve research and tackle inequalities.”
Those were all vital goals, but three years on, the problems remain stubbornly in place: long waits for gynaecology treatment, patchy access to services, women reporting that they are not listened to, pain not taken seriously and conditions diagnosed too late.
Medical misogyny is a perverse and unacceptable norm in the health sector. Women are not offered pain relief when they need it. The side effects of treatment and drugs on women in particular are far too often overlooked and under-researched. More research is needed to improve medical and reproductive products for women. In addition, about half a million women are waiting for gynaecology treatment across the country.
We just cannot keep failing women in this way. The current average wait for a diagnosis of endometriosis is nine years and four months. Tackling NHS waiting times, including for gynaecological services, must be a top priority for the Government. More needs to be done to tackle the backlogs. Waits for health conditions specific to women should not be so much longer than those for general health conditions.
The former Secretary of State recognised that the NHS
“has a problem with basic, everyday sexism and an appalling culture of medical misogyny.”
We welcome that acknowledgment, but we believe that the Department of Health and Social Care should ask the same questions of itself.
As I say, new clause 57 would ensure that the average waiting time for diagnosis and treatment for elective conditions for women’s health issues does not exceed the average waiting time for wider NHS elective treatment. It would be a meaningful step towards parity and equality. As we know, in the NHS what gets measured gets done.
The Government’s new women’s health strategy is welcome—it has more urgency and has the laudable goals of tackling medical misogyny, of faster diagnosis of conditions such as endometriosis, and of better pain management—but in comparison with the men’s health strategy that was released last year, it lacks teeth. Its goals are laudable, but it lacks a named academic network, a formal National Institute for Health and Care Research-aligned research mandate, a committed stakeholder governance group, a named condition-specific research investment at a comparable scale to that in the men’s health strategy and a formal accountability architecture with named organisations, governance structures and public reporting obligations.
This time, we need to back the strategy with real investment in the services that impact women, which have been stretched to breaking point. New clause 58 would introduce an inquiry into the poor health outcomes faced by women. We hope that such an inquiry would achieve the same goal and shed a light on women’s health issues, which seem to get so little focus at the moment.
Dr Johnson
I rise to discuss new clause 104, which stands in my name. The Labour Government’s general election manifesto made a bold pledge:
“Never again will women’s health be neglected.”
The Government have been in power for two years, and I am not convinced that they are doing all they can for women’s health. The latest NHS statistics show that waiting lists are rising under this Government. The trend is particularly acute for gynaecology services. More women are awaiting admission to hospital for gynaecology treatment or procedures than in July 2024. How does that square with the Government’s ambition to improve and prioritise women’s health?
We talked this morning about fracture liaison services, which is another treatment that would predominantly have benefited women if the Government had kept their promise and rolled it out as they said they would. The previous Conservative Government commissioned the Hughes report. The Labour Government have repeatedly pledged to address the issue at the earliest opportunity, but when will the Minister respond to the women who have been waiting so long? The Government published their renewed women’s health strategy in April, but where are the timelines, steps and milestones to deliver and implement improvements to women’s health? Where is the plan to reduce gynaecology waiting lists? Where is the timetable for delivering on long-acting reversible contraceptives, for example?
I have no doubt that the Minister has a desire to improve outcomes for women and improve their care, but I am concerned about the actual delivery, which has been a theme throughout the day. I tabled new clause 104 because this Labour Government have made promises to women that they need to keep, and that they need a plan for how they will keep them. My new clause would ensure that they have a plan to deliver, rather than just making promises in glossy brochures.
Karin Smyth
Hon. Members have brought to the Committee a really important discussion about women’s health. I am very happy to have that discussion, because the Government are committed to prioritising women’s health. That is why I am so proud that we published a renewed women’s health strategy earlier this year.
I say in response to the Liberal Democrat spokeswoman, the hon. Member for North Shropshire, that we renewed the strategy partly because—to be absolutely fair to the Conservative party—we agreed with much of what it put in place under its women’s health strategy. We did not see the need to start it from scratch, so to speak. There had not been a men’s health strategy, so they are very different propositions.
Much of the direction had been covered, but the implementation had not. On the point made by the hon. Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham, we wanted to go further and faster and acknowledge some things, as the former Secretary of State did, about medical misogyny, as well as the need to renew that strategy.
I fully agree with new clause 57 that women should get equal access to high-quality elective care. We are committed to tackling the long waits for services primarily affecting women; I am acutely aware that women can wait disproportionately longer for a wide range of treatments, although none solely impacts women more than gynaecology services. The Government recognise that injustice. That is why we have implemented measures to improve gynaecology services and women’s access to care, including piloting gynaecology pathways in community diagnostic centres for patients with post-menopausal bleeding, increasing the relative funding available to incentivise providers to take on more gynaecology procedures, and using surgical hubs to help endometriosis patients to get quicker treatment. Those measures have helped to improve 18-week referral-to-treatment times for gynaecology by 5.1 percentage points over the past year.
We will go further over the course of this Parliament, including by launching NHS Online clinical services from 2027. That will initially prioritise nine conditions, including women’s health conditions such as severe menopause symptoms and menstrual problems that may be a sign of endometriosis or fibroids. Patients will have the choice of getting the specialist care they need from home, and we will provide additional appointments to reduce waiting times.
More broadly, we have committed to returning to the NHS constitutional standard by March 2029 so that 92% of patients wait no longer than 18 weeks from referral to consultant-led treatment across all patient groups and specialties. Delivering against this standard would also require the waiting times for a diagnostic test to improve significantly. We recognise that, which is why in the medium-term planning framework, the NHS target is to ensure that by March 2029 no more than 1% of patients are waiting more than six weeks for a diagnostic test.
On new clause 58, we acknowledge that women’s health has been neglected and that women deserve better. We acknowledge that there have been longstanding failings in women’s health outcomes, experiences and access to care. That is why we published the renewed women’s health strategy, making it clear that women’s voices and choices are central in healthcare. We will transform NHS performance in the services that matter most to women, support all women to live healthy, prosperous lives, and create an approach to research and development that works for and empowers women.
Reducing inequalities is hardwired throughout the strategy. Actions are targeted by deprivation, ethnicity and unmet need, with a focus on marginalised women, community-based services, neighbourhood health models, and transparent data. The renewed women’s health strategy marks a decisive shift from identifying problems to delivering change. By listening to women’s voices, improving performance where it matters most, and tackling the drivers of poor health and inequality, we will ensure that women and girls receive the care, respect and outcomes they deserve. As a result, we do not think that conducting an independent inquiry into women’s health provisions and outcomes in England at this time would add value. Instead, now is the time to deliver the change that we all know and agree is absolutely needed.
I recognise the intention behind new clause 104, but I do not believe that it is necessary to publish an implementation plan. The action summary tables in the renewed women’s health strategy clearly highlight the responsible delivery organisation and the planned timeframe for all 117 actions. Some actions are already under way or funded for this year; others will be delivered over the next two to five years, and more fundamental reforms will be phased in over the next decade, aligned with the 10-year health plan.
Progress in the renewed strategy will be judged against three overarching outcomes: reversing the decline in healthy life expectancy since the 2010s, raising healthy life expectancy in the poorest regions to at least 61 years, and reducing the time women spend in poor health, particularly where inequalities are greatest—something I see very starkly in my Bristol South constituency. We will also be transparent on progress through a new women’s health data dashboard, publishing neighbourhood-level data on performance, access, outcomes and experience.
This Government have already undertaken extensive engagement to inform the development of the strategy. We had nearly 100,000 responses to the 2022 women’s health strategy call for evidence, more than 400 submissions from individuals and organisations with expertise in women’s health, and analysis from the Change NHS engagement exercise, where roundtables brought together women with lived experience, clinicians, academics and expert organisations. I was part of some of those roundtables and it was very instructive. I thank them for the work they did to get us to this point. We will continue to engage and to listen to women through the new women’s voices partnership and through patient-reported experience and outcome measures, which will help to shape and improve services.
Creating a new statutory duty to publish an implementation plan risks diverting attention and resources away from delivering the actions in the renewed strategy, which should now be our priority. It is for those reasons that I ask hon. Members not to press their new clauses.
Helen Morgan
I am suddenly cast back to 31 years ago, when I was choosing my subjects for the final year of my history degree. One of the early modern history papers was provocatively entitled “Women and other deviants”. It was called that to draw attention to the fact that, despite making up 50% of the population, women are often treated as a minority group. I sincerely hope that we are not still in that situation, but women’s issues clearly still need addressing. I will take the Minister at her word, but I will keep pressing her on this issue as we go through the course of this Parliament. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause 66
Puberty blockers
‘(1) Within three months of the passage of this Act the Secretary of State must make regulations which ensure that puberty blockers may not be prescribed, dispensed or supplied to persons under 18 years of age for the purposes of treatment related to gender dysphoria, gender incongruence or a combination of both, in the United Kingdom.
(2) These regulations must ensure that such drugs cannot be given out or used as part of clinical trials for the treatment of gender dysphoria, gender incongruence or a combination of both, unless that trial has specifically been approved by a resolution of both Houses of Parliament.
(3) For the purposes of this section, puberty blockers means—
(a) a “gonadotrophin-releasing hormone (‘GnRH’) analogue” which means a medicinal product that consists of or contains buserelin, gonadorelin, goserelin, leuprorelin acetate, nafarelin or triptorelin, and
(b) any other drug which has the effect of suppressing or delaying puberty that the Secretary of State may by regulation appoint.’—(Dr Caroline Johnson.)
This new clause would create a requirement for the Secretary of State to make regulations which prevent puberty blockers from being prescribed to persons under 18 years of age for the purposes of treatment related to gender incongruence, or clinical trials related to gender incongruence unless specifically approved by Parliament.
Brought up, and read the First time.
Dr Johnson
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
New clause 66 relates to the prescription of puberty blocker drugs, also known as GnRH agonists. A first rule of medicine is “Primum non nocere”—first do no harm. That is what this clause seeks: to make sure that harm does not come unnecessarily to children. It is required because the Government are sponsoring a £10.6 million trial to put 226 physically healthy children on puberty-blocking drugs. That is being done despite the fact that the Health Secretary claims he feels “uncomfortable and uneasy” at the prospect.
There are lots of questions that need to be answered. The minimum age for this trial is 11 years old for girls and 12 years old for boys, despite the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency having recommended a much older group. When my hon. Friend the Member for Fylde (Mr Snowden) asked why in a written question, the Minister gave a holding answer. Is that because the Government do not know or because they do not want to say?
I am not convinced that the trial will produce the answers the Government want. Apparently, they are asking the question of whether puberty blockers benefit children who have questions over their gender and who will later go on to have a trans identity in adulthood. The challenge is that we do not know which of the children who have challenges with their gender during puberty will go on to have such an identity in adulthood, so we are essentially doing a trial on a large number of children to see whether puberty blockers are beneficial for a small group, or, as it was described by the Secretary of State,
“a very small subset of a very small group”.—[Official Report, 22 June 2026; Vol. 788, c. 56.]
The Government have data that they could use in a data linkage study to try to narrow that field down, but for some reason they are choosing to do this trial before that. I do not understand why; perhaps the Minister can explain.
I do not want to detain the Committee too long on this issue—I could talk for some time—because we have had Opposition day debates in the House on it, but we have seen unease from both sides of the House. The Minister will be aware that there was a vote on the trial at the end of the recent Opposition day debate, and there were a large number of abstentions, as well as three votes against, from her party, as well as many votes against from ours. Puberty blockers carry risks that may or may not be reversible: there are concerns about bone density, cognitive damage and fertility loss, all for children who should be enjoying their childhood.
The new clause would prevent a trial from taking place without votes in the Houses of Parliament. I appreciate that we would not normally seek to have votes in the Houses of Parliament on a clinical trial, because it would slow clinical trials down, but I think this topic in particular has unfortunately become so polarised that it is very difficult to see how it can be processed properly.
Ultimately, the Government have responsibility for what goes on in this country. If the Government want to pay for the trial, then it is the Government’s trial, and the Government should bring it before the House for us to decide as parliamentarians whether it is the right thing to do. I think it is absolutely not. I think we are putting children at risk of permanent harm. We do not know that these children are going to benefit. We do not even know if they are in the pool of children who would, in the long term, have a trans identity, and the Government are not even waiting to see whether they can find out using the data linkage study. It is wrong, and we need to do what we can to try to prevent it.
Gregory Stafford (Farnham and Bordon) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Lewell. I had written a 25-page speech for this debate, but to the disappointment of my researcher—and probably the delight of this Committee—I do not intend to read out all 25 pages. [Interruption.] There are cries of “Shame!” from my own side, but I accept that there are a number of amendments and new clauses to get through. My stated objection to the puberty blocker trial is also well known and on the record, so I do not wish to detain the Committee for too long.
I want to pick out five areas where I think there are problems. They are why I support new clause 66, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham. My first point can be summarised as: “Don’t repeat a mistake to find out whether it was a mistake.” Thousands of children have already received puberty blockers through the former Tavistock pathway, and my view is that, before exposing a whole new cohort, the Government should complete the long-promised data linkage study to establish what happened to those children. That is probably the core argument.
Secondly, if the Government rightly say that the drugs present an unacceptable safety risk, how can it be ethical to give them to children in a trial? It must still be an unacceptable safety risk, whether it is for the general population of those who wish for it or for the people in the trial. The Government banned routine prescribing because of the safety concerns, yet propose administering the same medicines in a research setting. That is a complete contradiction of the ban.
Thirdly, clinical equipoise does not exist in the evidence if the evidence already points to significant risk and uncertain benefit. The Cass review concluded that the evidence base for puberty blockers is weak and that concerns remain over bone health, fertility and neurodevelopment. A trial should not proceed unless there is genuine uncertainty that justifies exposing children to those risks.
Fourthly, children should not bear the burden of answering questions that the NHS should have answered itself. The failure to collect the robust, long-term evidence from previous patients, including through the data linkage trial, should not be remedied by recruiting another generation of vulnerable children. Ethical research requires exhausting the existing evidence first. Finally, even the medicines regulator—the MHRA—had sufficient concerns to halt the trial. The MHRA intervened to pause the pathways trial over safety and wellbeing concerns, reinforcing the idea that the scientific and ethical questions remain unresolved. A pause should lead to a complete reassessment, not simply restarting as soon as possible.
Dr Johnson
Does it concern my hon. Friend that the person who raised the concerns about the trial then recused himself from further involvement in it?
Gregory Stafford
It did. If memory serves, that question was raised—although I cannot say more because it was in private. I do have concerns that the professor who was in charge and raised those concerns at the MHRA was recused. I cannot discuss the details of that, but it could show that there was a bias in the selection of the people who were pushing the trial forward. I am not saying that there was bias, but I think that, on an issue of such importance, the perception of bias is almost as bad. We need to be very careful about that.
Either way, I think the trial is wrong for the five reasons I have outlined. The key reason is the moral and ethical issue, and my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight East raised it in both the Health and Social Care Committee and the Chamber: it is clearly morally wrong to experiment on children just for the sake of experimenting. The fact that there is no evidence does not mean that we should put children through a trial to see whether the evidence exists.
Karin Smyth
Usually, I say that I am grateful that a discussion has been brought before the Committee and that I am happy to have it, but it is unusual to have a discussion on a clinical trial in a political environment. I stand to be corrected, but I do not think that there has ever been a clinical trial subject to a parliamentary vote. There has been an Opposition day debate about this, in which many issues were rightly aired, so we will not spend much time discussing it this afternoon.
The safety and wellbeing of children and young people is paramount. Children’s healthcare must always be led by evidence and expert scientific and clinical advice. We all know that that was not the case in some of the instances at the Tavistock over time, in the late 2010s. We pay tribute, as we have done several times, to the then right hon. Member for Bromsgrove when he was Secretary of State for Health—in 2022, he finally took action on that particular service and what went on there, commissioning Dr Hilary Cass’s review, which we supported on a cross-party basis, for the health, safety and wellbeing of children. Hilary Cass’s interim review in 2022—which bears reading, for those who have not read it recently—found the evidence for the service model and the clinical base to be woefully lacking. In the 2010s, that was allowed to continue for a long time, but fortunately started to be stopped in 2022.
Ever since, we have had cross-party agreement in support of Dr Cass’s review. She found that the evidence on the use of puberty-supressing hormones for children and young people for treatment of gender incongruence is “remarkably weak”. Based on the available evidence, NHS England introduced a new clinical policy in March 2024 that means that puberty-suppressing hormones are no longer available routinely in the NHS for children and young people with gender incongruence. In December 2024, for non-NHS prescriptions, the Government introduced an indefinite ban on the sale and supply of puberty-suppressing hormones to children and young people for the purpose of gender dysphoria or incongruence. That followed independent advice from the Commission on Human Medicines.
Clinical practice should be based on evidence. When evidence is lacking, clinical research takes place to improve the evidence base. That is why, to properly understand the impact of puberty-suppressing hormones to treat gender incongruence, the Cass review recommended a clinical trial. In line with the Cass review’s recommendation, a trial has been developed and has now secured updated study approvals from the MHRA and the Health Research Authority.
This country has a well-deserved international reputation for academic and scientific excellence, with robust independent regulatory processes in place to properly scrutinise and assure the scientific rigour and ethics of publicly funded clinical trials. That helps to ensure that individuals receive evidence-based care, based on the highest quality research, regardless of their clinical diagnosis. I therefore disagree with the view of the hon. Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham that, uniquely, clinical trials for those types of medicines must be subject to the scrutiny and approval of both Houses.
Dr Johnson
A couple of points. Does the Minister recognise that the cancel culture associated with much of the work in this area, and in looking after those vulnerable groups of children, means that the tendency among those who get involved is to have a particular view? How has she worked to ensure no bias among those on the committee involved in producing the trial? Does she recognise that by choosing a cohort of children—226 of them—to do this experiment on, she is selecting a group of children of whom most will have a gender incongruence that will get better by itself? There are two effects of that. First, these children will have unnecessary treatment. Secondly, even if there were in theory a benefit to the small group of children who would have persisted in a trans identity, that would affect the reliability of the results; therefore, whatever the results, people would think them unreliable.
Karin Smyth
I think that was yet another addition to the hon. Lady’s speech. Initially, she asked whether I recognised the cancel culture in this area. I have already alluded to, absolutely, recognising that what occurred in the 2010s at the Tavistock and around was not acceptable. Under the stewardship of the Conservative party of the NHS and so on, it took until 2022 to start rectifying that situation in order to give good treatment to children and young people. She is herself a clinician, so I am somewhat surprised at her. Noting what I set out, I am surprised that she does not recognise that a clinical trial has never—I stand to be corrected—been subject to a vote in Parliament, whereby politicians who are not experts have a say; but we can come back to that.
Karin Smyth
I am going to move on.
Noting what I have set out, having such a vote would set an uncomfortable precedent that would be likely to significantly compromise the value and reputation of UK research, as well as creating an inequity unique to individuals with gender incongruence or gender dysphoria. For those reasons, I ask the hon. Lady to withdraw the new clause.
Dr Johnson
I am not aware of any clinical trial that has provided potentially extremely harmful medication to children who have a self-limiting issue and who are physically healthy, to change their physically healthy bodies by changing puberty or anything else to a physiologically abnormal state from a physiologically normal one. These are children going through normal, physically healthy puberty. Their normal puberty is being stopped. I think the trial is badly designed, and I wish to press the new clause to a vote.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
Helen Morgan
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Guildford (Zöe Franklin) for tabling the new clause. She has asked me to speak about dental deserts in Surrey and East Hampshire, the area that she lives in and represents. The new clause places a duty on the Secretary of State to ensure that there is adequate provision of NHS dental appointments in Surrey and East Hampshire, and allows us to raise once again the shocking state of dentistry in this country.
As we have discussed on many occasions, more than 5 million children did not see a dentist at all in 2025—that is a stark reminder of what we mean when we talk about dental deserts. We have heard that DIY dentistry has become normalised, which is pretty horrifying. People are using pliers to extract teeth and superglue to reattach crowns, or attempting to fill cavities with household adhesives. Beyond those obviously shocking Victorian scenes, DIY dentistry is very risky and has, tragically, led to deaths from sepsis. That is all because people cannot get an NHS dental appointment and cannot afford a private one.
The last Conservative Government pushed dentistry to the brink, and children and parents in particular are paying the price of that neglect. That is a national shame—one that we must fix. As I mentioned, my hon. Friend the Member for Guildford tabled the new clause to highlight the issues in her part of the country. Surrey and East Hampshire is not the worst place in the country for access to NHS dentistry, but it does face serious issues. Some pockets of the population have been left unable to get an NHS dental appointment.
The action taken so far by the Labour Government has not been good enough, but the fault for this dire situation lies solely at the door of the Conservatives. Their years of neglect have left our dentistry in a shocking condition. Healthwatch—once again showing why it is so important—has classified large parts of Hampshire as dental deserts. Equally, a Healthwatch report into dentistry in Surrey told us of ever-so-familiar themes: people cannot find a dentist accepting NHS patients, information about dentists accepting NHS patients is not up to date, and there are financial barriers to receiving dental care. Clearly, much more needs to be done for the people of Surrey and East Hampshire. I commend the new clause to the Committee.
Gregory Stafford
Unlike that of the hon. Member for Guildford, my constituency covers both Surrey and East Hampshire, so I welcome the focus that new clause 72 places on our local area. Constituents regularly raise with me their concerns about seeing an NHS dentist. As I have announced a number of times in this Committee—although I have not checked today, so may not be true any more—there is not a single dentist in my constituency taking on adult or child NHS patients at the moment.
For many people, the challenge is not simply one of convenience; it is about being able to access timely care when they need it. Good oral health is an essential part of overall health, and we cannot allow dentistry to become an afterthought in our healthcare system. The ability see a dentist for routine check-ups, preventive care and urgent treatment helps to reduce pressure elsewhere in the NHS by dealing with problems before they become more serious.
The new clause rightly highlights the need both for urgent appointments and for improved access to routine NHS dental care. Prevention is at the heart of a sustainable healthcare system, and regular access to dental services plays an important role in achieving that. I welcome the accountability that the new clause seeks to introduce. In places where there are persistent challenges in accessing services—so-called dental deserts—local communities deserve transparency about what action is being taken and why improvements have not yet been delivered. As I have mentioned before, the spanking new dental surgery in Haslemere hospital has sat entirely unused since it was built, and, as far as I am aware, there are no plans to use it. That seems like a shocking waste of money and, more importantly, a shocking waste of a dental surgery that could be treating patients in Haslemere and the wider area.
The hon. Member for North Shropshire always wants to place the blame with the Conservatives, and does not seem to feel the need to challenge the Government, but I gently remind her that there was a Liberal Democrat Minister in the Department of Health and Social Care for five years, and apparently they did absolutely nothing to raise this issue.
Although this issue is particularly important for Surrey and East Hampshire, it reflects a wider challenge facing communities across the country. Residents should not have to struggle to find an NHS dentist, and ensuring that provision is adequate must remain a priority. I hope the Government take that on board.
Karin Smyth
Welcome to another rerun of the 2010s —happier times for the Opposition. Sometimes they do not remember what happened, and I have to remind them—and every now and then, they remind us. This is a really important issue, not only for the hon. Member for Guildford, who tabled new clause 72, and the hon. Member for North Shropshire, who moved it, but for all our constituencies. It has been a huge priority for this Government.
The Secretary of State will continue to have a duty to promote a comprehensive health service in England. In addition, clause 4 provides for an amended duty for the Secretary of State to reduce inequalities in access to services across England. However, we also recognise that practical action is needed to secure access to urgent and routine NHS dentistry care. As the Committee has discussed, that is why the Government have prioritised a number of improvements over the past two years.
Last year, ICBs commissioned additional urgent dental care appointments, and there is now an urgent care safety net across the country. In April 2026, we introduced a requirement for NHS dental practices across England to deliver a set proportion of their contract as urgent care. Supported by increased payments for dentists delivering that care, that made it easier for patients to get prompt support through the NHS. We are committed to reforming the NHS dental contract by the end of this Parliament—something that could have been done at any point in the past 14 years. As a first step, the package of reforms we introduced earlier this year will address some of the pressing issues that dentists and dental teams have been experiencing. Those reforms will help to prioritise those with the greatest need, supporting a shift away from clinically unnecessary check-ups.
The Government are already making progress on improving access to NHS dentistry across England, including in Surrey and East Hampshire. I hope that hon. Members can see how legislating for one area in particular conflicts with the Secretary of State’s duties to promote a comprehensive health service for England as a whole, and risks creating health inequalities in other regions. For that reason, I ask that the hon. Member for North Shropshire withdraw the new clause.
Helen Morgan
My hon. Friend the Member for Guildford has specifically requested that I press the new clause to a vote because she feels so strongly about the issues in her area.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
Helen Morgan
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
The new clause would place a duty on the Secretary of State
“to publish a strategy to combat anti-vaccine and medical disinformation”.
We increasingly see the impact of anti-vax and medical disinformation. Lower vaccination rates have been recognised as a growing threat to public health this year, and in February the NHS launched a new vaccination campaign following concerns about the declining uptake of measles, mumps and rubella vaccinations.
Disinformation, including anti-vax conspiracy theories, is dangerous and leads to increased levels of preventable illness. The leader of Reform UK has platformed prominent anti-vaccine conspiracy theories at his conferences, and Reform UK needs to be held accountable for its role in this. It is amplifying and importing the conspiracy theories and outright dangerous views of the US President and Robert F. Kennedy. The leader of Reform UK has refused to condemn Donald Trump’s medical conspiracy theories, including unfounded claims about autism and paracetamol. Those views have had a very real effect in the US, undermining and hollowing out important scientific and medical institutions to the detriment of the nation’s health.
Dr Prinsley
Does the hon. Member agree that the invention of vaccination by Jenner centuries ago is the single most important medical invention we have had in this country?
Helen Morgan
I absolutely agree. My mother and grandmother both had polio, which nobody would expect to experience in this day and age. That same grandmother’s sister died of diphtheria, and her father had smallpox. That was all just over 100 years ago, so it was not too long ago that people were experiencing what we now consider to be antiquated and unthinkable diseases.
The vaccination programmes that have been brought in over the past century have undoubtedly been game-changing for public health, not least for people growing up with working-class backgrounds, as my family would have been. That is why it is so important to deal with the disinformation that allows unscientific and dangerous anti-vax views to be communicated convincingly to the wider community.
Sojan Joseph (Ashford) (Lab)
I agree with the hon. Member that people with power, especially those with political platforms, have used it to spread misinformation about vaccination. Some medical professionals working in our hospitals and the NHS—doctors and nurses—are also against vaccines. Can the hon. Member explain how we can tackle that issue?
Helen Morgan
It is really important not to blame people who have seen convincing information online or have been given convincing information by people who ought to know better—including at political party conferences. We need to battle the source of that information and ensure that accurate, factual information is available and communicated to everyone in an accessible way by people they trust. That is key to all this. As I have said before, ostracising or ridiculing people who have been given information in a very convincing way is not the way to resolve this problem. We need to tackle it in an understanding way by communicating the facts sympathetically and accessibly.
It is important to note that concerns about vaccinations are not exclusive to a single group of voters. There is significant vaccine hesitancy across some ethnic minority communities and in hard-to-reach places across the country. We must do more to support doctors, nurses and the NHS to fight fiction with facts, or the long-term health of the country will suffer. That is what new clause 77 seeks to do. There is some great local work being done, but there needs to be a joined-up strategy to combat all aspects of disinformation, because a nice social media video telling people to get their jab will not beat it.
Now that Reform UK has a greater presence in our local government, NHS leaders will have to handle more and more difficult conversations with anti-vax and conspiracy theorist councillors, and they deserve support to engage with those people effectively and constructively. The proposed strategy would provide just that. It would have to consider
“support for medical professionals to build trust and engage with persons who are anti-vaccine…investment in public messaging to combat medical disinformation, including engagement with trusted online influencers…outreach campaigns focused on communities that are sceptical about vaccinations…introducing criminal liability for those, including online influencers and politicians, who profit from medical disinformation, and…a new verification requirement for any social media account claiming to be a medical professional.”
We must do more systematically to protect the NHS and our nation’s health from the growing threats of medical misinformation. We urge the Government to give this issue the focus it needs, and we hope that they consider this new clause one way to do that.
Karin Smyth
The hon. Member has brought up an important topic. The Government absolutely recognise that inaccurate information can undermine confidence in vaccines, which are so important. We are already taking a multi-pronged approach to addressing that through national communications, support for healthcare professionals and the ongoing monitoring of emerging narratives.
The evidence is clear that, although it is a risk, misinformation is not a primary cause for people not to take up the offer of vaccinations. Rather, practical barriers such as access to services, socioeconomic factors and levels of awareness play a more significant role. We are already acting to reduce those barriers, with targeted action to improve access, strengthen communications and support frontline staff. A new statutory strategy focused solely on disinformation would risk narrowing our approach when a broader, evidence-led response is required.
For those reasons, we do not consider the new clause to be the right approach. I recognise much of what the hon. Member says about access to information, but we want to maintain a wider approach. On that basis, I respectfully ask her to withdraw the new clause.
Helen Morgan
I thank the Minister for her response. I think it is important that we keep an eye on the power of medical misinformation or disinformation, and expand that consideration to things such as therapy chatbots. It is not just an online problem, but an AI problem—it is not just malign influences that cause the problem. I beg to ask to leave to withdraw the motion.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause 81
Minimum service levels
“(1) Within six months beginning on the day on which this Act is passed, the Secretary of State must, by regulations, make provision for minimum service levels to operate in the NHS during periods of strike action.
(2) Regulations under subsection (1) may repeal or otherwise amend provisions in the Employment Rights Act 2025, insofar as is necessary for the purposes of this section.
(3) Regulations under subsection (1) must include provision for minimum levels of service by categories of NHS workforce staff, including all Agenda for Change staff but not doctors.
(4) Regulations under subsection (1) may not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.
(5) When minimum service levels are in operation under this section, the NHS must set minimum standards of acceptable service to be provided by the NHS during periods of strike action, including mitigating any effect on appointments, medical procedures, acute services, midwifery, surgical procedures, and any other matters that the Secretary of State deems appropriate.
(6) With one year beginning on the day on which regulations are made under subsection (1), and within each period of a year thereafter, the Secretary of State must lay before Parliament a report on compliance with minimum service levels, including reasons for any failure by operators to secure the required thresholds, and actions the NHS is taking to improve performance to meet the minimum service levels.”—(Dr Caroline Johnson.)
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to make regulations which create minimum service levels to operate in the NHS during periods of strike action.
Brought up, and read the First time.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss new clause 82—Strike action—
“(1) It is an offence for medical practitioners to undertake strike action.
(2) The Secretary of State may repeal or otherwise amend provisions in the Employment Rights Act 2025, insofar as is necessary for the purposes of this section.”
This new clause would make it illegal for doctors to go on strike.
Dr Johnson
New clauses 81 and 82 stand in my name. As a doctor, I felt deeply uncomfortable with the morality of going on strike, with doctors leaving their patients to suffer in order to get more money for themselves. That is one of the reasons why the previous Government introduced minimum service legislation to ban strikes in essential services. We are clear that we would not allow doctors to go on strike, just as the police and the military cannot. These are key services and key people for the functioning of our country.
Unfortunately, on 6 August, one month after entering office, this Government announced that they would repeal the minimum service legislation, leaving the safety of patients at the behest of union barons. Despite resident doctors having a 28.9% pay rise, we have seen damaging strike action across the NHS: the Minister wrote that the strike action has cost £1 billion since July 2024. The latest round of strikes in April 2026 led to the cancellation of almost 50,000 appointments, on this Government’s watch. Those are all patients who are waiting.
Dr Prinsley
I am interested in what the hon. Member has to say about strike action. I was involved in trying to get the resident doctors’ strike stopped, but was unsuccessful for many months. I think she is talking about the principle of whether people involved in medical care should ever go on strike. If she were to apply the proposed measure to medical practitioners, would she introduce the same rule for nurses?
Dr Johnson
If the hon. Gentleman reads new clauses 81 and 82 together, he will see that one of them would require doctors not to go on strike, because they are involved in the clinical decision making across the piece, while the other would make provision for staff across the NHS to be on minimum service level provision. That is something that I maintained under the previous Government as well: I do not think that doctors should go on strike, in the same way that the police and the military do not go on strike.
Medical professionals are key to the functioning of a hospital in a way that means they should not go on strike. Other staff within the hospital provide an extremely valuable and important service, but often several individuals provide that service, so it might be possible to say, “We can have three here rather than five today and still deliver most of the service.” Fundamentally, I do not think that it is morally right for doctors to go on strike, because in effect they are saying to people, “We know you’ve been waiting for your knee replacement for a year and we know your knee hurts, but we’re not going to do your knee replacement today, because we’re going to go on strike for more cash.” I just do not think that that is right. [Interruption.] I will take an intervention from my hon. Friend the Member for Farnham and Bordon.
Gregory Stafford
My hon. Friend has just sat down. I was not sure whether she had finished her speech or was willing to take an intervention.
Dr Prinsley
This is, obviously, a very interesting discussion. I agree—I actually do—that medical practitioners should not go on strike, but the question is whether that should be the law. I would apply the same question to nurses, a point that the hon. Lady has not answered.
Dr Johnson
For generations, it has not needed to be the law: doctors did not go on strike, because they recognised what would happen to patients if they did. Now that we know that doctors will go on strike, the landscape has changed. Consultants—I should say that I am an NHS consultant—have just balloted to go on strike, which will be fundamentally unsafe. The Government have a duty to keep people safe; first and foremost, that is the Government’s job. Doctors going on strike is fundamentally unsafe and should not happen. I agree with the hon. Member for Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket that morally it should not need to be the law, but I think the evidence suggests that it does.
New clause 82 would make it
“an offence for medical practitioners to undertake strike action”,
and would provide for the Secretary of State to repeal any necessary clauses of other employment regulations in order to do so. New clause 81 concerns the minimum service levels provided across the NHS. There are staff who provide an important and valuable service but whose jobs may not be clinical; for example, services may be able to run with slightly fewer porters if they want to go on strike.
I hope that no member of NHS staff would want to go on strike. I hope they would want to make sure that patients were getting care, and I hope they would recognise that, in a universal service, they are essentially causing harm to the patients around them, who are their friends, their neighbours, the people who live on their street and the people who would look after them. However, the evidence suggests that that is happening, so I am afraid that these new clauses are necessary. We need to put a minimum number of staff in place to support the doctors, and doctors should be at work to make sure that patients are safe.
Gregory Stafford
Hopefully, this is a pleasure postponed. I rise to support new clauses 81 and 82, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham. As legislators, we have a moral duty to ensure that patients are protected during times of disruption in the NHS. Nobody disputes the fact that NHS staff work incredibly hard. They absolutely do. The dedication shown by doctors, nurses, paramedics, midwives and all those who keep our health service running deserves enormous respect. Having worked in healthcare for pretty much all my career, including for professional organisations such as the Royal College of Occupational Therapists, I know at first hand how hard they work.
Equally, we need to recognise that the NHS is not an ordinary service. Working for it is not like being a shop assistant, a bin collector or a tax inspector; in its importance to the health and safety of this nation, it is more akin to being a police officer or a member of our armed forces. It is an essential public service. When people are at their most vulnerable, whether that is because they are waiting for an operation, procedure or intervention or because they are in the process of having those interventions, they must have confidence that the care they rely on will still be there.
The right to strike has to come with responsibilities. In the NHS, the consequences of industrial action are real: cancelled operations, delayed treatments, missed appointments and increased pressure on emergency services. When I raised some of these issues with Sir Jim Mackey when he appeared before the Health and Social Care Committee, he could not tell me, hand on heart, that people have not died because of these strikes. I suspect that they probably have. For patients awaiting cancer treatment, for someone requiring urgent surgery or for families relying on maternity services, the impact can be deeply serious and potentially even deadly.
There is a moral obligation, both on NHS doctors and on us as legislators, to ensure that we have a universal, 24-hour, seven-day-a-week service that is free at the point of use that patients can and should expect to rely on. I therefore support new clause 81’s minimum service requirements and new clause 2’s the removal of clinicians’ ability to strike. We must ensure that our NHS staff are supported, protected, paid appropriately and given the resources they need to do their job, but the corollary is that they should remain on the job to serve our constituents.
Karin Smyth
There have been interesting discussions on these new clauses. I recognise that the intention behind them is to reduce the impact on patients and NHS budgets when doctors take industrial action. That is an objective that we all support, but I do not agree that the new clauses are the best way to achieve it.
I respect the shadow Minister’s professional background and the strong moral case she set out to explain why she does not feel it is appropriate. For a long time, as she says, doctors did not go on strike, but something changed in the industrial relations landscape roughly 10 years ago to start that process, that change of culture and that frustration that led doctors to strike. I listened with interest to the former Health and Social Care Secretary, the right hon. Member for Godalming and Ash (Sir Jeremy Hunt), reflecting on this issue recently—we’re all subject to podcasts these days, aren’t we? He spoke about those relationships at the time, and I think we should learn from that; it is very helpful to have those recollections. But something changed, and this has been the result.
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket and many others of his vintage, if I can say that—
Karin Smyth
Indeed. They wanted to work with resident doctors to talk through a way to make progress without resorting to strike action, because that is a sign of failure in any system.
On new clause 81, we are committed to reforming trade union legislation to bring it into the 21st century. We want to create an industrial relations framework that is fit for a modern economy, and workplaces that work for everyone. That is why the Employment Rights Act 2025 repealed the Strikes (Minimum Service Level) Act 2023. The previous legislation created a hostile environment, which was not conducive to good partnership working with trade unions or to settling disputes.
On new clause 82, although strikes are hugely disruptive, a ban on a doctor’s right to strike is not the answer.
Dave Robertson (Lichfield) (Lab)
As I am sure the Minister knows, I have been a trade unionist since I started my teaching career some years ago. I have been involved in a number of industrial actions over that time, as a teacher and member of a trade union and as a trade union staffer. The driving force behind a significant majority of those industrial actions was not pay; it was often the safety of staff, the safety of sites, bullying managers or the inability to deliver an environment in which members felt they could deliver their best. Does the Minister agree that the ability to take industrial action is not always about money-grubbing or about pay? It is often about health and safety and about delivering the very best workplaces for our workers.
Karin Smyth
I thank my hon. Friend for bringing his experience to bear on this matter. I absolutely agree. New clause 82 stems from that resident doctors dispute. One of the first things that we did was to agree the 10-point plan with regard to the management in trusts. I have said before how truly shocking the working conditions are in many trusts not just for resident doctors, but for other doctors and professionals. There is no ability to take a break, have a rest or get away. Some of the equipment that they are dealing with is also shocking, as are the levels of the estate. Those are some of the many things that have driven and continue to drive poor industrial relations, along with the fact that there is no one to speak up for them.
Dr Johnson
The Minister says that if doctors want to go on strike, that is a failure of the system. The consultants have just balloted to go on strike. What failure in the system does she think has caused that?
Karin Smyth
I think I said that it is a failure of representatives on both the management side and the union side to agree a solution. That is what I meant by a failure of the system. Ultimately, strike action, as my hon. Friend the Member for Lichfield would attest, is a sign of the failure of good, conducive relationships and partnership working. That is why we never want to see it.
Dr Johnson
I understand the Minister’s interest in the balance between trade unions and patient safety. My personal view is that we should focus on patient safety. I am aware—anecdotally, to be fair—of examples of individual clinicians who were asked during previous strikes to come off the picket line to help and did not. I am also aware of many instances in which clinicians did, so it works both ways, but ultimately the Government’s job is to protect patients and put patient safety first. I will therefore press the new clauses to a vote.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
Dr Johnson
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
In their final months in office, the last Labour Government introduced the Equality Act 2010. That consolidated several pieces of anti-discrimination legislation, which was welcome, but it also introduced a new public sector equality duty, requiring public authorities to have “due regard” to preventing unlawful discrimination and fostering equality of opportunity between groups. The public sector equality duty also requires authorities
“to…encourage persons who share a relevant protected characteristic to participate in public life or in any other activity in which participation by such persons is disproportionately low.”
Unfortunately, that has become a vehicle for social engineering. It was designed, I believe, to improve equality of opportunity, but it is being used to gerrymander equality of outcome instead. That can mean discrimination—against different groups of people, but discrimination nevertheless.
That is clinically objectionable, because it means that health and social care staff may be recruited for reasons other than their clinical abilities, which are what we need and are most important. We have parts of the health service spending their time working on cultural learning classes and pushing paper around, rather than on patient care.
We must get the health service back to basic healthcare, ensuring that it delivers the very best healthcare, free at the point of use, to all individuals based on their clinical need, not their ability to pay. We need to focus on clinical need and the best possible staff, not on trying to gerrymander some sort of social engineering.
Karin Smyth
With new clause 83, I think the hon. Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham would like to exempt organisations that receive public funding to provide health and social care services from the public sector equality duty. I do not agree with the intent of this measure.
The duty under the Equality Act 2010 was designed to ensure that public authorities
“have due regard to the need to…eliminate discrimination…advance equality of opportunity”
and
“foster good relations”
in the exercise of their functions. That includes when designing and delivering services. It is not an unnecessary addition but part of good service design and delivery.
The duty is not there to dictate a particular outcome or set of priorities for the decision maker; it is there to help decision makers understand and take account of the consequences of their choices. It ensures that issues of discrimination, equality of opportunity and good relations between different groups of people are not overlooked during complex decision making. That is why it is important for publicly funded providers of health and social care to have due regard to the duty.
The public sector equality duty should always be applied in a proportionate way. It should not create an administrative burden. If a provider of health and social care is taking a decision that has little or no consequence to equality outcomes, it needs only to note that. It is for that reason that I ask the hon. Member to withdraw her new clause.
Dr Johnson
I wish to press new clause 83 to a vote.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss new clause 98—Response to the Hughes Report: options for redress for those harmed by valproate and pelvic mesh—
“The Secretary of State must, within 30 days of the day on which this Act is passed, publish the government’s response to the Hughes Report.”
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to publish the government’s response to the Hughes Report within 30 days of this Act being passed.
Dr Johnson
The Minister will remember the evidence given earlier in Committee by my right hon. Friend the Member for Godalming and Ash, in our first sitting. As our longest-serving Health Secretary, my right hon. Friend focused much of his tenure on patient safety, and yet, as he made clear:
“We are the world champion at doing inquiries and reports. Unfortunately we are also the world champion at allowing those reports to gather dust without anything actually happening.”—[Official Report, Health Public Bill Committee, 16 June 2026; c. 30, Q52.]
One clear example of that so far is the Hughes report. Twenty-nine months ago, Professor Henrietta Hughes published a report outlining redress for thousands of victims of the pelvic mesh and sodium valproate scandal. Time and time again, I and other hon. and right hon. Members have asked this Government when they plan to respond. Every time, the answer is, “Soon”, “At the earliest opportunity”, or, “We’re working on it”, but warm words are not enough to secure patient safety. Can the Minister confirm when she intends to publish the Government response to the Hughes report?
Many patient safety recommendations prompt questions about the effectiveness of the Care Quality Commission, the national care regulator. The former Health Secretary claimed that it was not fit for purpose, and yet the Government have decided to bring HSSIB—Health Services Safety Investigations Body—within the CQC, as well as to add other measures, including events management. We need urgent steps taken to revive the CQC to ensure that it is fit for purpose to uphold patient safety.
I will keep my remarks brief, because we have a lot to get through, but the Government need to respond to the Hughes report. Too many people, predominantly women, but men also, are waiting for the answers. They want to know what the Government are going to do. This Government have been in office for more than two years, with the report published shortly before that. Those people need an answer. In future, new clause 85 would mean that that delay cannot happen again, because the Government would have to respond to any future reports on patient safety issues within a set timeframe of six months, to ensure that we cannot have situations where people are waiting far too long for the answers that they need and deserve.
Gregory Stafford
I declare that I am a member of the all-party parliamentary group on patient safety. Patient safety cannot be something that is discussed only after a tragedy has occurred. It requires a culture of accountability, transparency, and most importantly, action. That is why the new clause is such a sensible and important amendment to the Bill. It would not dictate the outcome of every review or every recommendation, but it would require the Government to respond properly. The new clause would create a straightforward expectation that when experts have identified changes that could improve patient safety, Ministers cannot simply leave those recommendations unanswered. The new clause pushes that forward, as recommended by my right hon. Friend the Member for Godalming and Ash. There must be a clear process and a clear timeline.
Such a process and principle are closely connected with new clause 98 and the Government response to the Hughes report on those harmed by sodium valproate and pelvic mesh. Those are deeply serious issues involving people who have suffered life-changing consequences and have spent years seeking recognition and redress. Last week, I think, at the Health and Social Care Committee, I questioned the current Secretary of State on this matter, and his answer was equivocating, dissembling and, I am afraid to say, frankly unacceptable to those patients who have suffered from both those. He could not even tell me whether the response would be published by the end of the recess—we probably have two hours until recess, so unless the Minister is going to tell me otherwise, I suspect it is not coming before the recess.
It seems shocking—perhaps even a slap in the face to those victims—that the Secretary of State could not even give an answer on that issue. However, they received some positive news on Tuesday evening, when the right hon. Member for Makerfield (Andy Burnham)—presumably the incoming Prime Minister—raised this issue in the House during the debate on the remaining stages of the Public Office (Accountability) Bill. I hope the Minister has had the chance to speak to the right hon. Member—unlike the rest of us—so that she understands his priorities and when redress is coming. If her new boss has given his stamp of approval, Labour MPs on the Committee should have no problem supporting these Opposition new clauses.
Karin Smyth
I am grateful to the hon. Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham for bringing this discussion before the Committee again today. The safety recommendations are an important mechanism for improving services and securing better outcomes for patients. We support the aim of bringing greater clarity to the recommendations landscape, and we are already taking forward work in this area.
The Dash review of patient safety across the health and care landscape found that a very high number of recommendations have been made to the NHS that often lack any cost-benefit analysis, which is why the 10-year health plan committed to giving specific responsibility for reviewing, analysing and taking forward recommendations to the national quality board. In line with the Dash review, work is progressing on a recommendations hub that will sit within the Department.
The hub will include a repository to hold all national-level recommendations relevant to care quality, including safety, effectiveness and patient experience. It will provide an efficient system for co-ordinating, prioritising and overseeing recommendations made by the national quality board. The hub will record responsibility for implementing prioritised recommendations and, once fully operational, strengthen transparency and accountability for how they are taken forward, which is something I think we all welcome. This new approach will enable the NHS to focus on the actions most likely to enhance patient outcomes.
Where reviews or reports commissioned by the Secretary of State make recommendations to local bodies, those recommendations will remain subject to local governance arrangements within the overall co-ordination retained by the Department. Our existing plans meet the intention behind new clause 85; in fact, they go further by prioritising national-level recommendations for the NHS in a proportionate way, without being bound to specific timescales. They will provide the greater clarity that the new clause seeks without the need for legislation.
On the specific question, I am sorry to disappoint the many campaigners on this issue and Opposition Members by saying that we will not be announcing anything in the next two hours, but the point has been well made. I responded to a Westminster Hall debate myself, and the Minister responsible for patient safety has previously responded to the commissioner and made public the work that the Government are doing. Due to the cross-Government nature of the work, we cannot give exact timelines.
We have heard the calls for clarity, speed and decisive action, and we have committed to setting this out at the earliest opportunity. I have not had a chance to speak directly with my right hon. Friend the Member for Makerfield about this issue, but I am sure many conversations on many subjects will be coming our way soon. As both my right hon. Friend and the Prime Minister made clear during Tuesday night’s debate on the Hillsborough law, redress and patient trust are important aspects of rebuilding the confidence of the public and those who have been wronged in all parts of the state. We are committed to getting this out as soon as is credibly possible. For that reason, I ask the hon. Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham to withdraw her new clause.
Dr Johnson
The new clauses ask the Government to respond to recommendations on patient safety, and to say within six months whether they will implement them. As I said, we have been waiting several years for the Hughes report response. All new clause 98 would require is that the Secretary of State must, within 30 days of the Bill’s passage, publish the Government’s response to the report. That, in itself, is not immediately soon; it is 30 days after the Bill is passed, and it is still yet to go through the Lords and return to the Commons. The new clause would effectively provide a backstop or legal end date—it is still too far away—after which the Government cannot go any further. I will be very disappointed if the Government are not prepared to do that, so I would like to press the new clause to a vote. These people have waited long enough.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
Dr Johnson
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
Advice and guidance services were an improvement. Previously, if a general practitioner wanted to refer someone to hospital, a consultant would triage the referral. Sometimes, the referral was not needed, so a message would be written to the GP saying, “I wonder if you’ve tried this” or “Could you give more information, please?” Improving that process was the advice and guidance service, which in many ways is beneficial.
I am, however, concerned by the suggestion earlier in the year that advice and guidance will become a compulsory feature, and that only after advice and guidance has been received will there be potential for referral. Instead of a GP being able to refer to a consultant and a consultant being able to accept that referral, advice and guidance will have to be sought first. That will cause a delay in patient pathways and flow. It may mean that the date on which the person is added to the waiting list for an appointment is a couple of days later. That may slow things down and improve the figures, but I cannot see any clinical benefit from mandating it.
There is also a concern that there would be what is called a diversion rate of at least 25% by March 2027 for at least 10 high-volume specialties. I am concerned about that. If someone gets to the point of being given a hospital appointment, that is because the clinician who saw them in primary care used their clinical judgment to decide that the patient needed that appointment, and the consultant triaging the referral used their clinical judgment to decide that the patient needed to be seen.
Dr Prinsley
I wonder whether the hon. Member’s experience mirrors mine. Many years ago, it seemed to be easy for general practitioners to ring me up. I often received telephone calls from general practitioners asking for advice about patients. As time went on, general practitioners became busier and busier and seemed to have less time to telephone consultants. When I started my consultant career, I spoke often to general practitioners, and by the time I got elected to Parliament and had to stop, I found that was a very unusual thing. Has her experience been similar?
Dr Johnson
I think we are all getting busier. As such, it is harder for clinicians in primary care to phone the consultant and speak to them, because both are busy and potentially seeing patients. I am not criticising the ability to have an advice and guidance service, because it is helpful. We do the same with specialists in tertiary centres, for example. One might send them a message asking a question. Advice and guidance is a good principle. My concern is that it would remove the ability for consultants to refer directly, introducing an unnecessary delay in the system. Are we questioning the judgment of clinicians? Why do we want to reduce the number of patients who get put on the list by a quarter?
I recognise, as I am sure the hon. Member for Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket does, that sometimes referrals could be better directed. There is a mechanism already for doing that, but new clause 86 reflects the fact that general practitioners should still be able to refer patients using their clinical judgment to a consultant. That may be someone who the patient has chosen to see or who the GP believes is right for the patient’s condition.
Dr Prinsley
The other important fact is that more and more hospital referrals were not coming from general practitioners at all, but from other people working in the general practice such as nurses and physician associates, who are less confident in forming a clinical judgment.
Dr Johnson
If they are, they can use the advice and guidance service. The point is that when a general practitioner wants to refer his or her patient to a consultant on the basis of their clinical need, they should be able to. That is the purpose of the new clause.
Karin Smyth
As someone who previously set up a referral management service, I feel the need to join in this interesting clinical discussion while everybody else watches us for the next hour and a half, but I am not going to do that.
Some interesting points have been raised. To add my two pennies’ worth to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket, the change in practice is partly due to increased specialism among consultants, which makes it harder to refer. When we set up a referral management service in Bristol, two issues were the pressure on general practice and the use of locums, who were perhaps working temporarily in the area and did not know the full range of available community services. That was some 12 years ago, so greater support on advice and guidance is long overdue as we roll this out.
At the end of the day, the aim is to support patients getting the right clinical care in the right place as fast as possible. We want patients to have timely assessment of their care needs and clear next steps in the right settings. GP referrals and support for GPs in making those referrals is crucial.
The advice and guidance model, which allows GPs to seek rapid specialist input into a patient’s care without an initial face-to-face appointment, and the single point of access model, which will be rolled out in October, support GPs and hospital specialists to work together and make the best treatment plans for patients while reducing unnecessary referrals and increasing waiting lists.
Trusts and integrated care boards must ensure that local GPs, GP leaders, local medical committees and interface groups are involved in the design and ongoing refinement of elective single point of access pathways. In my experience, that is important because we gain their expertise and there is more buy-in to making the pathways a routine part of their work. Advice and guidance is already a routine part of much GP practice. GPs continue to be able to make clinical decisions to refer for specialist care where that is in the patient’s best interests. Advice and guidance and the single point of access do not alter the clinical threshold for a referral, and a GP’s clinical decision to refer remains unchanged. All requests for advice and guidance will receive a response from a named consultant with clear accountability and oversight.
We are clear that GPs should continue to make a clinical decision to refer to specialist care where that is in the patient’s best interests. The model is intended to support decision making, not override it. To be clear to the hon. Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham, the intention was never to mandate. There is a difference, which I think was made clear in subsequent guidance on the system. The diversion rate, as she calls it, is an estimate of the potential of patients who are not referred to the right place in the first place. It is not compulsory. What the new clause proposes already exists and does not need to be set out in primary legislation. For those reasons, I ask her to withdraw it.
Dr Johnson
If the hon. Lady is correct, she will not be perturbed by the new clause, which simply says that general practitioners must be able to directly refer patients to consultants when clinical need requires it. I would like to press the new clause to a vote.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss new clause 113—Prioritising British citizens for the UK foundation programme (No. 2)—
“(1) The Medical Training (Prioritisation) Act 2026 is amended as follows.
(2) In section 4, after subsection (4) insert—
‘(4A) A person is within this subsection if they—
(a) are a British citizen,
(b) have indefinite leave to remain under the Immigration Act 1971, or
(c) have settled status under the EU Settlement Scheme, and
(d) hold a primary medical qualification from an international branch campus of a higher education institution in the United Kingdom.’”
This new clause amends the Medical Training (Prioritisation) Act 2026 so that British citizens, people with indefinite leave to remain, or settled status who have studied at international branch campuses of UK higher education institutions can be prioritised for foundation programme training places.
Dr Johnson
New clause 87 would amend the Medical Training (Prioritisation) Act 2026 so that British citizens who have studied at international branch campuses of UK higher education institutions can be prioritised for foundation programme training places. Prioritising British students in the selection process would have been the right thing for the Government to do, but way the Medical Training Act has been drafted places British students who studied at international branch campuses of British universities at a disadvantage.
On Second Reading of the Act, a Member spoke of a constituent who had been given
“a formal guarantee that he would be at no disadvantage if he chose to study at the Malta campus.”—[Official Report, 27 January 2026; Vol. 779, c. 801.]
Another Member said that he had
“representations from all quarters, both in the UK and in Malta, about the impact on Malta of this.”—[Official Report, 27 January 2026; Vol. 779, c. 802.]
My right hon. Friend the Member for South West Wiltshire (Dr Murrison) asked about
“British students who for various reasons train at, for example, St George’s in Cyprus or St George’s in Grenada and who then want to come back and practise in our national health service”. —[Official Report, 27 January 2026; Vol. 779, c. 803.]
The hon. Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Danny Beales) spoke of a constituent who was schooled and grew up here and was
“given a guarantee by the university that she would face no disadvantage compared with students on the London campus.”—[Official Report, 27 January 2026; Vol. 779, c. 842.]
These concerns are shared across the House.
Young British people who have trained at a British or London-based university and gone to study in Malta, perhaps in an adventurous spirit—it is a beautiful place to go—and have graduated with a British degree have found themselves at the back of the queue, unable, round after round, to get jobs in the foundation programme in their home country. That will not just be the case for students who are due to start their degree; it is the case for students who have just completed their degree. They have done the five years of training, they have worked really hard and they have passed their exams, but suddenly they cannot get a job on the foundation scheme in their home country to complete their full registration with the General Medical Council.
Our new clause would ensure that British citizens who studied at international branch campuses of UK higher education institutions can be prioritised. I invite Members to do right by our constituents and the NHS and to vote for it.
Karin Smyth
I appreciate the intention behind new clause 87, but the Government cannot support it. The Medical Training (Prioritisation) Act is designed to support a sustainable medical workforce that can meet population health needs and deliver the best patient care while reducing the UK’s reliance on an unpredictable international labour market. By creating a clear pathway for medical school to speciality training, we also strengthen domestic talent and improve retention.
What matters is where a doctor is trained, not where they were born. Data shows that domestic graduates are more likely to stay in the country they trained in than those trained internationally. Doctors trained primarily in the UK are also likely to be better equipped to deliver healthcare that is tailored to the UK’s population, because they have a stronger understanding of UK-specific epidemiology and NHS practice.
In addition, the Government set UK medical school places based on future health system needs. Student intakes and graduate outputs of overseas campuses are not included in our domestic workforce planning. If we prioritised British citizens for foundation training regardless of where they studied, it would undermine our aim to build UK-trained capacity while ensuring that we do not provide more foundation programme places than we need.
I would like to emphasise—this is an important point—that prioritisation does not mean exclusion. Non-prioritised applicants can still apply for the foundation programme and will be offered places if vacancies remain after prioritised applicants have received offers—I understand that is already happening for the 2026 recruitment round. For individuals who do not secure a foundation post this year, there remain alternative routes to pursuing a medical career in the UK. Those include obtaining GMC registration through the established pathways, such as completing an approved internship in the country where they trained and entering the UK healthcare system through a locally employed doctor role or other non-training posts. I ask the hon. Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham to withdraw the new clauses.
Dr Johnson
There are fewer than 100 students who are British citizens studying in Malta this year. Many of them have struggled to get a role on the foundation scheme. The Government have created a situation in which a British student doing a British degree at a British university with an overseas campus is put into the foundation scheme behind a foreign student studying here, or indeed in the same prioritisation group as a foreign student studying at a foreign university. That cannot be right, so I would like to push the new clause to a vote.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
Joe Robertson (Isle of Wight East) (Con)
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss
New clause 97—Publication of annual dementia care report—
“(1) The Secretary of State must publish annually and lay before Parliament a report on—
(a) the provision of NHS care in relation to dementia, and
(b) provision of social care in relation to dementia.
(2) In preparation of the report under subsection (1), the Secretary of State must have regard to targets, standards and outcome measures set out in national plans, guidance and frameworks relating to dementia services.
(3) In preparation of the report under subsection (1), the Secretary of State may have regard to any such measures or information that they consider appropriate, including—
(a) an assessment of any variation in dementia services and outcomes between integrated care board areas,
(b) information on workforce capacity, capability and training standards relevant to dementia care,
(c) information on access to ongoing post-diagnostic support services, including support for unpaid carers,
(d) information on continuity and coordination of care for people living with dementia, including access to a named professional responsible for coordinating support across services,
(e) outcomes and experiences for people living with dementia and unpaid carers, including crisis prevention, carer wellbeing, and experiences of joined-up care,
(f) progress on dementia prevention and risk reduction, and
(g) dementia research activity in the NHS.
(4) The Secretary of State must publish the first such report under subsection (1) within 12 months of the passage of this Act.”
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to produce an annual report on the delivery of dementia care by the NHS and social care sectors against relevant national targets, standards and outcome measures.
Joe Robertson
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Ms Lewell. These two new clauses, the latter of which is in my name, deal with the publication of an annual report detailing NHS and social care provision for dementia care and how the Government are performing against targets, standards and outcome measures set out in national guidance and frameworks relating to dementia services. I would like to thank three important charities working in this area: the Alzheimer’s Society, Alzheimer’s Research UK and Dementia UK. All three back the two new clauses.
The data requested is imperative to ensuring that the Government can measure and monitor progress against relevant national targets, standards and guidance, including the new modern service framework on dementia, the forthcoming Care Quality Commission statutory guidance and outcome measures that may be set in future NHS operational planning guidance. That is crucial to improving transparency and accountability, allowing systems to see the full picture of dementia provision in England and highlighting challenge areas or inequalities. The Bill makes provision for the establishment of information systems to collect, analyse and publish health and care data that is in the interest of the health service in England. The clause fits into that and would require the collection of data on the provision of dementia services in health and social care.
I do not propose to speak too long, but I do want to make a couple of remarks on the current situation, which sets these new clauses in context. Dementia data is not currently comprehensively or consistently collected, analysed and published. That means that we cannot fully understand the provision of NHS care or social care for dementia, which is the biggest cause of death in the UK; how national targets, guidance or frameworks are being met; and where inequalities and challenges lie.
As well as being the leading cause of death, dementia is a disease that around 1 million people live with. That number is expected to rise to 1.4 million by 2040. That will, of course, impact many more friends, families and carers who support those living with dementia. More than a third of people living with dementia in England do not have a formal diagnosis. Those who do receive a diagnosis live with the condition for an average of three and a half years before that diagnosis. Post-diagnostic care and support is often fragmented, leaving people affected by dementia without a clear point of contact, co-ordinated care, or access to specialist support for those with complex needs. Recent findings show that only 14% of people with dementia have an advanced care plan in place. That is not good enough for a disease that affects so many people and is the leading cause of death in England.
Dementia puts immense pressure on our healthcare system: one in six hospital beds is occupied by someone living with the condition. Lord Darzi’s investigation into NHS performance highlighted how
“there is an important challenge to improve both the quality and quantity of care for people with dementia.”
The new clauses would go some way to addressing that, and I urge the Government to support them.
Karin Smyth
We largely agree with new clauses 96 and 97 and the comments of the hon. Member for Isle of Wight East. He cited some organisations: Alzheimer’s Society, Alzheimer’s Research UK and Dementia UK; hon. Members across the House have worked with them, and many other organisations in this field, and value the work that they do. The hon. Member rightly notes the work that they do to support the friends, families and carers of people with this disease, which is increasing in prevalence. He also commented on the importance of getting diagnosis earlier, and we are moving forward but we need to do so as fast as we can; I think we would all recognise that. I completely understand the rationale behind the new clauses and the urgency with which people want to have sight of the sort of information outlined in them, but we do not think that the new clauses are necessary. I will highlight why.
Some of the data that would be requested by new clause 96, such as details of research in the NHS and reports of lived experience, is already available and often provided by our charity partners, as well as by others. The new clause would therefore lead to a duplication of work. Provision of the other pieces of requested information and the data collection required to produce the report required by the new clause would likely be very onerous, placing additional stress on an already overstretched sector, and would distract from the core task of improving dementia care. It would be especially difficult to get consistent and comparable information from across the adult social care sector, where data can sometimes be fragmented.
Instead, we think that the modern service framework for dementia and frailty is a more helpful vehicle for setting national standards of dementia diagnosis and care, and will serve to hold the sector to account. Additional reports, such as those requested by the new clause, would distract from that and result in duplication.
The framework is still in development and work is ongoing to review the relevant data, metrics and targets to inform it. The framework will also set new national standards, which will help to inform meaningful analysis in the future—something that we are all very keen to see. For those reasons, I ask the hon. Member to withdraw the clause.
Joe Robertson
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the clause.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
New Clause 97
Publication of annual dementia care report
“(1) The Secretary of State must publish annually and lay before Parliament a report on—
(a) the provision of NHS care in relation to dementia, and
(b) provision of social care in relation to dementia.
(2) In preparation of the report under subsection (1), the Secretary of State must have regard to targets, standards and outcome measures set out in national plans, guidance and frameworks relating to dementia services.
(3) In preparation of the report under subsection (1), the Secretary of State may have regard to any such measures or information that they consider appropriate, including—
(a) an assessment of any variation in dementia services and outcomes between integrated care board areas,
(b) information on workforce capacity, capability and training standards relevant to dementia care,
(c) information on access to ongoing post-diagnostic support services, including support for unpaid carers,
(d) information on continuity and coordination of care for people living with dementia, including access to a named professional responsible for coordinating support across services,
(e) outcomes and experiences for people living with dementia and unpaid carers, including crisis prevention, carer wellbeing, and experiences of joined-up care,
(f) progress on dementia prevention and risk reduction, and
(g) dementia research activity in the NHS.
(4) The Secretary of State must publish the first such report under subsection (1) within 12 months of the passage of this Act.”—(Joe Robertson.)
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to produce an annual report on the delivery of dementia care by the NHS and social care sectors against relevant national targets, standards and outcome measures.
Brought up, and read the First time.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
Dr Johnson
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
Under the Government’s preference-informed allocation scheme, when a doctor is applying for a foundation post, they are allocated randomly to a job. They get to express a preference, but there is no work they can do to make them more likely to get where they want to be; there are no certificates they can earn, there is no research they can do, and there are no exam results they can get that would improve their chances. That is fundamentally wrong.
The Government say that many people get their first choice, which is true. That is great for them, but it is not great for the people who do not get their choice and have no control over their future. We had a very good debate on this subject, attended by many people in this room, in January, and there was widespread agreement on both sides of the House that it was the wrong thing to do. The Minister said at the time that the Government would keep the system under review. Has the Minister reviewed the system? Does she believe that we should prioritise medical graduates with the most relevant qualifications, clinical experience and skills? Does she think that doctors should have the opportunity to have control over where in the country they work and what jobs they do? Should doctors be able to work harder, aim for better results or do additional activities in order to get themselves the job they want, or does she think it should all be done by a computer?
I would be interested to hear the Minister’s thoughts. The new clause makes clear our position that meritocracy should prevail and people should be rewarded for the work they do and the results they get, and that we should be hiring the best clinicians who apply for the jobs.
Dr Prinsley
I think the new clause refers specifically to the foundation programme—
Dr Johnson
It would amend the relevant part of the Medical Training (Prioritisation) Act 2026, so that when people are put forward for these jobs in the foundation programme, it should be done on the basis of merit. At the moment, as the hon. Member is aware, it is done on the basis of random allocation—preference-informed allocation—which I think is wrong. I would be interested to know the Minister’s thoughts on the subject.
Karin Smyth
This is an area of some discussion, some of which we have heard, but we do not think it is necessary, where we are now, to put such a measure in primary legislation. The Medical Training (Prioritisation) Act establishes a statutory process for prioritising certain groups for training posts; it is not intended to change eligibility for training or the high standards that applicants must meet. Embedding some of these provisions in primary legislation would leave them inflexible to future workforce needs or standards of education and training. If Parliament wishes to change how recruitment processes themselves operate, that is best done outside legislation through established routes.
The preference-informed allocation system was introduced in 2024 following stakeholder engagement, because the previous system was felt to be unfair and stressful for applicants, with a lack of standardisation across schools. Since its introduction, as I understand it, 82% of applicants have been allocated their first choice of foundation school this year, up from 71% in 2023. NHS England has committed to a review of the system, which will commence later this year. Prescribing the allocation method in legislation would pre-empt that review and limit our ability to make future changes to ensure that the system remains fit for purpose. On that basis, I ask the shadow Minister to withdraw the new clause.
Dr Johnson
The new clause deliberately says that applicants would be prioritised based on merit, and it gives examples of ways in which merit might be judged. I understand what the Minister says about some people getting the job of their choice, but the people who do not have no control over the process, and no ability to influence it through their own hard work and effort. That is fundamentally wrong in principle. Although I recognise that the current method was brought in as a result of consultation, I feel confident that the same consultation, done now, would reject it. We would like to vote on the new clause.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
Dr Johnson
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
During a Westminster Hall debate in December, a Government Minister said:
“In the coming months, in the first half of next year, I confirm that we will publish the acquired brain injury action plan”.—[Official Report, 4 December 2025; Vol. 776, c. 472WH.]
We are now in the second half of 2026. Members may be familiar with the charity Headway UK, which does phenomenal work to support people affected by brain injury, including people in my constituency. Headway has called for the Government to treat the plan as a priority, reiterating that every delay has real consequences and that survivors need support now. The all-party parliamentary group for acquired brain injury, which the hon. Member for Blaydon and Consett has done a great deal to support, has called for the Government to take action.
So why is action not forthcoming? Why have the Government failed to deliver another policy on time? It is part of a pattern. The Government spent a year writing a 10-year plan. They spent another year working on a workforce plan, which still has not been published. It is simultaneously “imminent” as of 30 days ago and non-existent today. They are behind on the Hughes report, the modern service frameworks, universal 24/7 mechanical thrombectomy, fracture liaison services and more.
The new clause would simply commit the Government to delivering on their promise to the 1 million people living with the effects of acquired brain injury. I struggle to see how the Assistant Whip can compel Members to vote against that.
Karin Smyth
I think all Committee members can recognise the importance of this issue. An acquired brain injury is a life-changing event for those affected, and for their families and loved ones. Its treatment involves co-ordination between primary, community, secondary and specialist care, and is personalised to the needs and life circumstances of the individual. Its effects are not limited to a person’s health: it can impact their journey through education, their employment prospects and so many other aspects of life. Because of that, they rightly expect coherent, joined-up support from across Government.
Therefore, as we have discussed, we are working in partnership with eight other Government Departments, ABI charities, patient representatives and the NHS to develop an ABI action plan. We also continue to work closely with the United Kingdom Acquired Brain Injury Forum, which is the umbrella organisation for brain injury charities, as the plan develops and moves towards publication.
Liz Twist (Blaydon and Consett) (Lab)
I am glad to hear that work is going on, but as the Minister may remember, work has been going on for a very long time—some Opposition Members may remember that past work. The issue is clearly important to people, so we need to see action—again, it is about how we get to that end. I would like to see some commitment from the Government. I recognise that the Minister is not in charge of the acquired brain injury strategy, but could she help us by referring the issue to the relevant Minister for an urgent discussion?
Karin Smyth
I thank my hon. Friend for her work on and commitment to this issue, as was highlighted by the shadow Minister. I thank her also for her work on the APPG and with organisations such as Headway, to which we pay tribute for its work supporting patients and the public, and for her work with Members of Parliament and the Government on getting this right, which is legion. My hon. Friend has made similar comments in the House. The Minister responsible is continuing to work on the action plan, which I will talk about as we continue our consideration.
The new clause raises the issues of prevention, identification, acute treatment, rehabilitation, long-term support, care planning, workforce capability, data and research, all of which are being considered in the work being done across the eight Departments. The Government agree that there should be a plan, and the relevant Minister, to whom I will of course pass my hon. Friend’s comments, will be working on that.
The question is whether the proposals in the new clause are best placed to ensure that any plan will be robust, sustainable and timely for the patients it is designed to serve. I say gently to the shadow Minister that I think they are not. First, setting an arbitrary 30-day timeline for publication risks causing either an unnecessary delay or a duplicate plan. Secondly, as I hope she will appreciate, we have engaged more widely than with just the three Departments named in the new clause. As I have said, as many as eight Departments are contributing, which reflects the wide range of areas that are impacted by brain injury.
Let me give the shadow Minister the assurance that I believe she is seeking, as are others: a plan will be published as soon as possible. That plan is being developed with the breadth, rigor and pace that the issue demands and is receiving input from across the health system, as well as from other Departments responsible for supporting people with acquired brain injuries and sector-specific stakeholders and organisations. I hope that she will work with us to support the plan once it is published, in the interests of our constituents, who desperately require a new approach to ABI prevention, care and support. I ask her to withdraw the new clause.
Dr Johnson
The Minister said that the plan is being developed with the pace that is needed, but it is not. It was due to have been published already, but it has not been. It was due to have been published, then a later promise was made, and now she is making another promise with an uncertain date. I just do not think it is good enough. A theme of our consideration this afternoon has been all the different things the Government have promised but have failed to deliver.
Dr Johnson
Yes, I accept that it has taken too long, and that is the point. I assume that it must be ready to go, because the Minister has been working on having it published by the end of June, and we are in the middle of July. The Minister can inform us whether that is the case. We have reached a point where the Government keep saying “later”, “soon”, “imminent”, “in due course” and “working at pace”, but that is not helping to get this done. The new clause would force the Government to get on with it. That is what I think needs to be done, and that is why I will press it to a vote.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss new clause 106—Safe and proportionate reclassification of medicines—
“Within 12 months of the date on which this Act receives Royal Assent, the Secretary of State must publish an assessment of—
(a) opportunities to support self-care and prevention through the reclassification of medicines,
(b) barriers to appropriate medicines reclassification within the current regulatory framework,
(c) the impact of medicines reclassification on patient access, NHS demand and productivity, and
(d) steps being taken to support a proportionate and agile regulatory framework for medicines reclassification whilst maintaining patient safety.”
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to publish an assessment in relation to the safe and proportionate reclassification of medicines.
Dr Johnson
The Government’s 10-year health plan says that reducing hospital admissions is a key goal for the neighbourhood health service. These new clauses could help, because they would require the Secretary of State to support self-care and health literacy in neighbourhood health plans and to conduct a safe and proportionate reclassification of some medicines.
Pressure on GPs continues to grow, with the total number of GP appointments reaching almost 377 million in 2025. The new clauses are designed to relieve pressure on the healthcare system and allow people to take back control of their healthcare. There are medicines that could be considered for reclassification from prescription-only to being available from pharmacists without a prescription, in the way that medication for migraines, for example, previously had to be prescribed but can now be bought with supervision from a chemist. How might measures to increase self-care or pharmacy care square with the Secretary of State’s duty to improve health inequalities outlined in the Bill? In addition, the new clauses might help neighbourhood health centres in rural communities to increase availability of medicines closer to people’s homes.
I will stop there, because I know that we are running short of time. The principle is to give people the ability to take control of their own healthcare and to more easily access medications that are currently under a higher classification, where it is safe to do so.
Karin Smyth
On new clause 105, I can assure the hon. Lady that the Government are committed to supporting self-care. Community pharmacies already play a vital role by offering accessible advice and, where appropriate, over-the-counter medicines for minor ailments. Through Pharmacy First, patients can walk into a pharmacy or be referred by NHS 111, a GP or A&E for expert support, including access to treatment under the seven clinical pathways. That helps people get the right care quickly while easing pressures on other parts of the NHS.
However, we do not think that it is necessary to specify health literacy and self-care in neighbourhood health plans. The neighbourhood health framework is clear that ICBs and local authorities should work together through health and wellbeing boards to develop locally led neighbourhood plans to improve local population health and reduce health inequalities. The framework sets out what should be included in those plans, and is clear that neighbourhood health plans should be informed by local joint strategic needs assessments.
If local areas think they would benefit from having a greater focus on self-care and health literacy, they are of course free to do so. However, that is for them to decide, based on their understanding of the local area’s needs. That permissive approach recognises that local leaders know their communities best and are therefore best placed to determine how to meet the population’s needs. We are not setting a ceiling on what local areas can deliver, and that approach will drive progress more than dictating an overly prescriptive national approach would. For those reasons, we do not think it is helpful or appropriate to define the contents of a neighbourhood health plan in legislation.
Moving to new clause 106, the Government recognise the important role that medicines reclassification can play in supporting self-care, improving access to treatment and helping patients manage their health more effectively, where it is safe for them to do so. There is already an established, evidence-based, proportionate framework for medicines reclassification in place, which is overseen by the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency. The UK is already a world leader in medicines reclassification, and the MHRA has reclassified more than 140 medicines over the last 30 years across varied therapeutic areas, including pain and inflammation, and continues to approve new reclassifications each year.
The Government have taken proactive steps to support further reclassification. The MHRA has worked closely with industry partners in recent years to streamline and improve the reclassification application process to ensure that it is as efficient as possible for applicants, while maintaining high clinical standards. Creating an additional statutory reporting requirement would not improve the assessment of individual applications, and nor would it accelerate access to medicines for patients. Instead, it risks duplicating activity undertaken in recent years and diverting resources from the effective operation of the current system. For that reason, I hope the hon. Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham has the reassurance she needs and will not press her new clause to a vote.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss new clause 109—Hospices revenue funding—
“The Secretary of State must ensure that any funding for hospices is allocated for three-year periods.”
This new clause places a duty on the Secretary of State to ensure that funding allocations for hospices is made on a three year basis.
Helen Morgan
New clause 108, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Sussex (Alison Bennett), will place a duty on ICBs to collect and publish data on the number of patients who died while waiting for end-of-life care. This is a fairly self-explanatory new clause, so I will keep my remarks brief.
We know anecdotally that palliative care provision is very patchy across the country and can be something of a postcode lottery, and that many people who die in hospital would have preferred to die at home with the support of hospice outreach services or in a hospice itself. The new clause would ensure that we understand how many of those people there are and where they are located, so that we can consider whether hospice provision is appropriately provided in the right places.
I hope the Minister will consider the importance of the new clause, which would allow us to have a much more comprehensive palliative care service across the country.
Dr Johnson
New clause 109, tabled in my name, is very simple, requiring hospice funding to be provided in three-year blocks. Hospices are struggling under the weight of the national insurance rise in the Government’s first Budget, so they would benefit greatly from having a bit more certainty over how much their funding will be from year to year. I am interested to hear the Minister’s response to the new clause.
Karin Smyth
This is a really important subject, as everyone approaching the end of their life deserves dignified, compassionate and high-quality palliative and end-of-life care. Hospices provide extraordinary care, and hon. Members are right to highlight the issues the sector faces. That is why the Government are committed to developing a modern service framework for palliative care and end-of-life care. The final framework will be published in the autumn.
New clause 108 would require integrated care boards to collect and report data on people who died while waiting for end-of-life care. It would also require the Department of Health and Social Care to publish that information nationally. New clause 109 would impose a single statutory three-year funding period on hospice funding. Both new clauses are likely to be answered by work already under way or included in the modern service framework.
On funding, we recognise that the sector faces a serious challenge, and the Public Accounts Committee found in March that integrated care board funding ranges from 0% to 80% of an individual hospice’s income, and that commissioning relies on grants and block contracts. There are also wider funding issues, such as the reliance on historic grants.
The Government are acting on those issues, and we have provided around £80 million over three years for children and young people’s hospices, or at least £26 million a year to 2028-29, adjusted for inflation. We have also provided a separate £125 million capital boost for both adult and children and young people’s hospices. That is the largest investment in hospices for a generation.
The MSF will support commissioning away from grants and block contracts to sustainable contracts based on integrated assessment of population need. It will consider contracting arrangements more widely, including a move away from short-term grant funding as part of the more comprehensive reform that the sector agrees it needs.
We are also strengthening data and evidence. We commissioned the National Institute for Health and Care Research’s policy research unit to build the evidence base on palliative and end-of-life care, including on inequalities in access and the identification of need.
We also expect the MSF to give us better insight into the performance of the system. Its metrics and accountability framework are being co-developed with people with lived experience and partner organisations from across the sector. It will measure identification, access, quality, outcomes and inequalities.
In the context of that ongoing work, the new clauses are not necessary. The MSF will give the House and the public a far more comprehensive picture of access to care than a single count could. It will also do so as part of improving the entire patient journey for people who need palliative and end-of-life care. Because this is a non-statutory approach, there will be more flexibility to adapt and change over time, rather than the system being required to follow requirements set out in primary legislation. I hope that that gives hon. Members the reassurance they need not to press their new clauses to a vote.
Helen Morgan
I thank the Minister for her response, and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Clause, by leave, withdrawn.
The Chair
We now come to new clause 109 tabled in the name of Dr Caroline Johnson. I call Dr Johnson to move the new clause.
Dr Johnson
I would like to move the new clause. We see hospices in huge financial distress at the moment, and we need to get their funding on a more certain footing.
New Clause 109
Hospices revenue funding
“The Secretary of State must ensure that any funding for hospices is allocated for three-year periods.”
This new clause places a duty on the Secretary of State to ensure that funding allocations for hospices is made on a three year basis.—(Dr Caroline Johnson.)
Brought up, and read the First time.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
New clause 110—Duty to promote the health and wellbeing of armed forces veterans—
“After section 14Z44 of the NHS Act 2006 insert—
‘Duty to promote the health and wellbeing of armed forces veterans
(1) Each integrated care board must exercise its functions with a view to improving and maintaining the physical health, mental health, and wellbeing of armed forces veterans within its area.
(2) In exercising its duties under this section, an integrated care board must have regard to—
(a) reduction of health inequalities experienced by veterans,
(b) prevention of deterioration in veterans’ physical and/or mental health,
(c) the need to ensure veterans are able to access appropriate preventative and other health services and support.
(3) An integrated care board must take reasonable steps to ensure that NHS bodies and providers of NHS services within its area provide veterans with information about support available to them for their health and wellbeing.
(4) In preparing a neighbourhood health plan under section 24 of the Health Act 2026 an integrated care board must include—
(a) an assessment of the health and wellbeing needs of veterans within its area,
(b) steps the integrated care board proposes to take to improve outcomes for veterans, and
(c) measures for reducing inequalities experienced by veterans.’”
This new clause would introduce a duty for integrated care boards to promote the health and wellbeing of armed forces veterans.
New clause 111—Duty to provide medical records on discharge from the armed forces—
“(1) This section applies where a person ceases to be a member of the regular forces or the reserve forces.
(2) The Secretary of State must by regulations make provision for a complete copy of the person’s service medical records to be provided to the person no later than one month after the day on which the person is discharged or otherwise ceases to be a member of those forces.
(3) Those regulations may specify the manner and form in which service medical records are to be provided under this section, including provision for records to be transferred directly to a civilian health body with the person's consent.
(4) In this section—
‘health body’ means—
(a) in relation to England—
(i) NHS England;
(ii) an integrated care board established under section 14Z25 of the National Health Service Act 2006;
(iii) a National Health Service trust in England;
(iv) an NHS foundation trust;
(v) primary care providers;
(b) in relation to Wales—
(i) a Local Health Board established under section 11 of the National Health Service (Wales) Act 2006;
(ii) a Special Health Authority established under section 22 of the National Health Service (Wales) Act 2006, other than a cross-border Special Health Authority;
(iii) a National Health Service trust in Wales;
(iv) primary care providers;
(c) in relation to Scotland—
(i) a Health Board constituted under section 2 of the National Health Service (Scotland) Act 1978;
(ii) a Special Health Board constituted under section 2 of that Act;
(iii) the Common Services Agency for the Scottish Health Service;
(iv) primary care providers;
(d) in relation to Northern Ireland—
(i) a Local Commissioning Group appointed under section 9 of the Health and Social Care (Reform) Act (Northern Ireland) 2009 (c. 1 (N.I.));
(ii) a Health and Social Care trust established by virtue of Article 10 of the Health and Personal Social Services (Northern Ireland) Order 1991 (S.I. 1991/194 (N.I. 1)), other than the Northern Ireland Ambulance Service Health and Social Care Trust.
(iii) primary care providers;
(5) For the purposes of this section, ‘service medical records’ means any records relating to the person’s physical or mental health care and treatment created or maintained by or on behalf of His Majesty’s forces during the person's period of service.”
This new clause places a statutory duty on the Secretary of State to ensure that all service personnel leaving the military receive a complete copy of their medical records within one month of their discharge date.
Dr Johnson
Under the previous Conservative Government, the NHS constitution was updated with a commitment to guarantee that
“those in the armed forces, reservists, their families and veterans are not disadvantaged in accessing health services in the area they reside.”
The previous Government also introduced the veterans’ strategy action plan, committing NHS England to providing millions of pounds for specialised support services. Ministers also introduced a single point for veterans to access mental health services and support. The previous Conservative Government also created an armed forces covenant duty. Today, we need to see the principles the covenant brought to life at all levels of Government.
Only last week, I received an email from a constituent who has moved around because of her husband’s service in the armed forces and who was struggling to access specialist services for her child’s health as a result. That is why we need new clause 112, which would require the Health Secretary to report on how they are meeting the duties under the covenant. Members will know that I am cautious about mandating any more paperwork, but veterans are being let down. We need some accountability. That report would hopefully achieve that, so I commend the new clause to the Committee.
Karin Smyth
On new clause 110, the Government are proud of the courage and dedication of our armed forces. We must all play our part in upholding the armed forces covenant, including for our armed forces veterans. The original covenant was under a Labour Government; I was proud, as part of my commissioning duties in Bristol, to work with the Royal British Legion to implement that more than a decade ago, and the work continues. I am therefore sympathetic to the intention to promote the health and wellbeing of our armed forces veterans, but I can assure hon. Members that the new clause is not necessary.
The Government’s vision for veterans is clearly set out in the veterans strategy, which recognises veterans as one of the UK’s greatest strategic assets. Furthermore, the existing armed forces covenant duty already places a legal obligation on integrated care boards to give due regard to the unique obligations and sacrifices of the armed forces when carrying out their statutory duties.
Helen Morgan
In terms of ICBs and their responsibilities to veterans, there are specialist veterans’ services around the country. One exists in my constituency, at the orthopaedic hospital in Gobowen, which has an excellent veterans’ centre. Yet the commissioning and payment for those services between ICBs is complex, messy and unnecessarily difficult. Would the Minister consider using the measures at her disposal to ensure that those things can happen more smoothly in the future?
Karin Smyth
I thank the hon. Lady for referencing that service in her constituency. I am not aware of the complications in the funding, but I will commit to getting back to her to understand that better, and I will see what the responses are from the commissioning function—I suspect it is a specialised one that falls between many different people. I am sure it has a long history, but I am afraid I am not directly aware of it, but I commit to getting a satisfactory response to her.
The covenant duty is underpinned by two core principles: first, that disadvantages arising from membership of the armed forces community should, where possible, be removed; and secondly, that special provision may be appropriate for those who have given the most, such as the injured and bereaved. Beyond that, ICBs have a range of inequalities-related duties relevant to the circumstances of veterans. They include a duty to have regard to the need to reduce inequalities between persons in accessing health services and in outcomes achieved from those services; a duty to have regard to the wider effect of decisions, including inequalities relating to health and wellbeing and to the benefits obtained from the provision of health services; and the public sector equality duty, with which all public sector bodies must comply.
Therefore, there is already a range of legal duties on integrated care boards to promote the health and wellbeing of veterans as part of the community the ICB serves. It is precisely because those duties already apply that we do not consider it necessary to replicate them in relation to neighbourhood health plans.
On new clause 112, a requirement on the Secretary of State to publish an annual report on compliance with the armed forces covenant duty would be wholly unnecessary. Legislation already requires the Secretary of State to lay a covenant annual report before Parliament each year covering the effects of membership, or former membership, of the armed forces on service people in the fields of healthcare, education, housing and the operation of inquests. Under that legislation, the Ministry of Defence must obtain the views of relevant Government Departments, including the Department of Health and Social Care, when preparing the report. Any annual report on compliance with the armed forces covenant duty produced by the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care would cover precisely the same subject matter and would be a duplication of information already publicly available.
New clause 111 relates to providing service personnel with their medical records within one month of discharge. The Government agree entirely that it is important that a patient and their care providers have access to their medical records. Primary healthcare for serving members of the armed forces is the responsibility of the Ministry of Defence and is provided by the Defence Medical Command. As a result, such care would be outside the scope of the amendment. There are established processes to allow for the safe transfer of relevant medical information to the service leaver and their new GP when that person leaves the armed forces. Service personnel receive a medical care summary, and are advised to register with an NHS GP and share the summary with their new GP.
Existing data protection legislation also allows an individual to request their full record on discharge. We recognise that, in some instances, the process does not work as well as we would like, which is why the Defence Medical Command is already working towards greater interoperability with NHS systems and the electronic transfer of medical records from Defence Medical Command to NHS GPs.
As hon. Members know, the single patient record will, wherever possible, draw on and connect relevant information in source records, such as GP IT systems and hospital electronic patient records, and allow the patient to see their record in the NHS app. That innovation further renders the measure unnecessary. For those reasons, and because the objectives are already being delivered through existing duties and ongoing reforms, I ask that the new clause is not pressed to a Division.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
Helen Morgan
I beg to move amendment 77, in clause 68, page 47, line 27, leave out from “to” to the end of line 28 and insert “the affirmative procedure”.
This amendment ensures that all secondary legislation as a result of this bill is subject to the affirmative procedure.
Helen Morgan
Amendment 77 is a probing amendment in the light of our previous discussions in Committee about the extensive powers that the Bill transfers to the Secretary of State. It would make all secondary legislation under the Bill subject to the affirmative procedure. I do not intend to press it to a vote, but I hope that the Minister will take into account the concerns that we have raised during these proceedings about the sweeping powers that the Secretary of State is taking on board.
Gregory Stafford
I heard the Liberal Democrat spokesperson say that she will not press the amendment, but I would be sorely tempted to vote for it if she did so. This important amendment sums up a number of our concerns about the Bill, and the commencement amendments to follow are also appropriate.
As the hon. Member will not press her amendment, however, I will not speak for long, save to say that I have enjoyed the past few weeks on this Committee. I hope that the Minister is still in place when we return in September. If she is not, I wish her very well and thank her for all her hard work, not just in this Committee, but in her role over the past two years.
Karin Smyth
I will respond to the hon. Gentleman in a moment, but first I will address clauses 68 to 72, as well as amendment 77, which was tabled by the hon. Member for North Shropshire.
Clause 68 will allow the Secretary of State, by regulations, to make provision that is consequential on this Bill. Amendment 77 would amend that provision. The Government recognise the importance of parliamentary scrutiny of the significant changes proposed in the Bill. While the Bill contains some new regulation-making powers, the majority are existing powers that have been amended in the light of the abolition of NHS England. They will therefore be uncontroversial and consequential, so we consider it proportionate for the same parliamentary scrutiny arrangements to continue to apply in respect of those powers.
However, where we are introducing new regulation-making powers, we have carefully considered what parliamentary scrutiny arrangements should apply. For example, any regulations that are made to facilitate the single patient record will be subject to the affirmative procedure, because we understand the importance of debating that issue in both Houses. Furthermore, any statutory instruments made under clause 68 that amend, repeal or revoke provisions made by primary legislation will be subject to the affirmative procedure and will need to be debated and passed by both Houses. I hope that the hon. Member for North Shropshire agrees that a blanket requirement for the affirmative procedure would be disproportionate. She said that she will not press amendment 77 to a vote, but I hope that what I have said provides her with the reassurance she was seeking.
Clause 69 is a standard clause that appears in Bills that provide for the expenditure of public money. It simply provides for any expenditure incurred by the Secretary of State as a result of changes made under the Act, once it has received Royal Assent, to be paid out of money provided by Parliament.
Clause 70 sets out the territorial extent of the Bill. While most of its provisions extend only to England and Wales, some are UK-wide. The clauses in the Bill largely apply to England only, and in previous sittings we debated the consequences for Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, and any issues relating to devolution, as and when they have arisen. Amendments to other legislation made by this Bill will have the same territorial extent as the legislation that will have been amended.
Clause 71 sets out when provisions in the Bill will come into force once it has received Royal Assent. As is usual, the clause provides the Secretary of State with the power to commence the majority of the Bill’s clauses on a date to be set out in regulations. It may also be appropriate to bring different provisions in the Bill into force at different times, and the powers in clause 71 will allow for that. The powers will also enable the Secretary of State to make saving or transitional provision in connection with the coming into force of any provision, which will enable the commencement of the Bill to operate smoothly and efficiently.
Under clause 63, as the Committee has heard, the Care Quality Commission will be able to take action to bring proceedings against a health and social care provider for a serious breach of regulations. However, that provision will apply only to new offences. To ensure that we can act to prevent cases falling through the gaps, we are committed to bringing in the measure as soon as possible after Royal Assent, while respecting the routine two-month window, as is set out in the Bill.
Clause 72 is self-explanatory and provides that, once passed, the Bill may be cited as the Health Act 2026. I commend the clauses to the Committee.
Before I conclude, I put on record my thanks to you, Ms Lewell, and to the right hon. Member for Herne Bay and Sandwich (Sir Roger Gale), my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing Central and Acton (Dr Huq) and the right hon. and learned Member for Kenilworth and Southam (Sir Jeremy Wright), for guiding this Committee—[Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”] I also thank the Clerks for everything that they have done behind the scenes. This is the first Bill that I have taken through a Public Bill Committee, and the work really is quite legion. The Clerks’ expertise is second to none and a delight to see closely.
Equally, I thank the officials in the Department of Health and Social Care and the lawyers, some of whom have worked on several Committees over the years. Again, I have learned so much from them and their expertise. It is a dedicated team, and their hard work and expertise on Bills over many years is good to see. I thank them for their support in making this Bill go forward.
I thank the hon. Members for Farnham and Bordon and for Sleaford and North Hykeham for their kind comments and good wishes. I also thank members on both sides of the Committee for their contributions over the past few weeks. Despite the heat, I, too, have enjoyed our discussions. I think that we have given the Bill a very good airing and there has been constructive engagement and scrutiny. They have given us lots of food for thought, which we have taken careful note of, regardless of whether we have taken up the amendments.
Dr Johnson
I echo the Minister’s thanks to the Clerks, House staff and others, as well as members of the Committee. Leaving aside the heat, I have also enjoyed our exchanges. I hope that the Minister has a good recess and that she does well in the upcoming reshuffle.
Karin Smyth
I thank the hon. Member for her kind comments. As the former Minister, the right hon. Member for Melton and Syston, recognised, I have been on the other side when considering a previous Bill. Opposition is hard work—the process is quite hard work on this side—and I commend Opposition Members for conducting that important scrutiny. I thank Members for their contributions and I think the Bill is stronger for those efforts.
Helen Morgan
May I associate myself with the Minister’s comments and thanks to everybody who has been involved in working on the Bill? I have also enjoyed my time on the Committee, despite the heat. I hope that the Minister remains in place when we come back on Report, because she is a hard-working and thoughtful Minister and it is a pleasure to stand opposite her in the House in my place as my party’s spokesman.
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 68 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 69 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 70
Extent
Amendment made: 80, in clause 70, page 48, line 18, at end insert—
“(2A) Section (Medical Devices Regulations 2002: mutual recognition agreements) extends to England and Wales and Scotland.”.—(Karin Smyth.)
This is consequential on NC92.
Clause 70, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clause 71
Commencement
Amendments made: 81, in clause 71, page 48, line 25, leave out “Section 63” and insert “The following”.
This paves the way for Amendment 82.
Amendment 82, in clause 71, page 48, line 26, at end insert “—
(a) section 63 (Care Quality Commission: time limit for bringing proceedings);
(b) sections (Regulations: reference to agreements and standards), (Medical Devices Regulations 2002: mutual recognition agreements), (Consultation about medicines and medical devices regulations), (Medicines and medical devices regulations: parliamentary procedure), (Medical devices: parliamentary procedure for certain fees regulations).”.—(Karin Smyth.)
This provides for the new clauses listed to come into force 2 months after royal assent.
Amendment proposed: 37, in clause 71, page 48, line 28, at end insert—
“(3A) The Secretary of State may not make regulations under subsection (3) commencing section (1) until the conditions in subsection (3B) are met.
(3B) The conditions are that—
(a) the Secretary of State has published a document setting out the operating model for the exercise of functions by the Department of Health and Social Care following the abolition of NHS England (the "operating model document"); and
(b) the Secretary of State has published a plan for the management of personnel affected by the abolition of NHS England and the transfer of its functions to the Department of Health and Social Care (the “workforce transition plan”).
(3C) The operating model document must include—
(a) a description of how each of the functions exercised by NHS England is to be exercised following its abolition;
(b) the governance and accountability arrangements for the exercise of those functions;
(c) the organisational structure of the Department of Health and Social Care as it will operate following the abolition; and
(d) the proposed timetable for the transition.
(3D) The workforce transition plan must include—
(a) an assessment of the number of personnel whose employment is affected by the abolition of NHS England;
(b) the arrangements for the transfer, redeployment or redundancy of affected personnel; and
(c) proposals for consultation with recognised trade unions and staff representative bodies in connection with the abolition.
(3E) Regulations to commence section (1) are to be made by statutory instrument and may not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, each House of Parliament.
(3F) Before laying a draft instrument under subsection (3E), the Secretary of State must allow a period of at least 60 days beginning with the date of publication of the operating model document and the workforce transition plan (whichever is the later) before the draft instrument is laid.
(3G) A period during which Parliament is dissolved, prorogued or adjourned for more than four days are not to count towards the 60-day period in subsection (3F).”.—(Dr Caroline Johnson.)
This amendment would prevent the abolition of NHS England before the production of an operating model for the merged DHSC/NHSE and associated plan to manage personnel.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
The Chair
We now come to the final Question I must put—that I report the Bill, as amended, to the House. Normally, at this point, Members say nice things to each other, but we have already done that, so we can move on.
Bill, as amended, to be reported.
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
Protecting Built Heritage
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 Desmond Swayne (in the Chair)
We will begin with the Select Committee statement. Jo Platt will speak on the publication of the third report of the Culture, Media and Sport Committee, “Protecting built heritage”, HC 144, for up to 10 minutes, during which time no interventions will be taken. At the conclusion of this statement, I will call Members to put questions on the subject of the statement and call Jo Platt to respond to them in turn. Questions should be brief and Members may ask only one question each.
I call Jo Platt to give the statement on behalf of the Culture, Media and Sport Committee.
Jo Platt (Leigh and Atherton) (Lab/Co-op)
Thank you, Sir Desmond. I am pleased to be here to present the Culture, Media and Sport Committee’s report “Protecting built heritage” and I am grateful to the Backbench Business Committee for allocating time for this statement. I also thank the Chair of the Culture, Media and Sport Committee, the hon. Member for Gosport (Dame Caroline Dinenage), for handing on the baton to a fellow Committee member.
The Committee launched its inquiry into the state of our built heritage back in December 2024. Over 12 months, we held five sessions, heard from 26 witnesses and received 113 pieces of written evidence. We also visited the National Gallery, the Southbank Centre, Buckingham Palace and V&A East Storehouse. I thank all those who gave evidence and welcomed us on visits. Our report, published on Monday, is the product of extensive evidence from heritage organisations, local authorities, faith groups, businesses, community organisations and individuals from across the country.
This inquiry is particularly important to me. Before returning to Parliament, I oversaw Leigh Spinners Mill, a grade II* listed former cotton mill in the heart of Leigh in my constituency. There I saw at first hand both the challenges and the opportunities that come with preserving historic buildings. I was involved in efforts to restore and repurpose the site so that it could support heritage, enterprise, arts and culture while serving our great community. That experience reinforced my belief that our historic buildings are not simply reminders of the past, but assets that can contribute to our future prosperity and wellbeing. Built by previous generations with confidence in the future of their towns, they should continue to be valued, preserved and invested in as part of our future.
That is one of the central messages of this report. Built heritage plays a vital role in the identity of our towns, villages and cities. Historic buildings support tourism, provide community spaces, create opportunities for economic growth and contribute to a sense of place and belonging. However, we heard concerning evidence that many of these assets are under growing pressure from rising costs, workforce shortages and a planning system that is too often inconsistent and difficult to navigate.
Yet alongside those challenges lies a tremendous opportunity. Historic England estimates that up to 670,000 homes could be created through the reuse of vacant or underused historic buildings. That is almost half of the Government’s 1.5 million homes target. We were struck by an initiative in Italy where homes can be sold for as little as €1, so long as they are neglected heritage assets that are successfully transformed into homes. We should demonstrate similar ambition. Too often, policy treats reuse as an afterthought rather than a priority. Our report argues that that must change. We therefore recommended the development of a national “heritage-to-housing” approach, and a broader strategy that puts the reuse and adaptation of existing buildings at the heart of regeneration policy.
We also believe that there is merit in establishing a dedicated programme to support the repurposing of underused town centre and high street buildings, helping local authorities to unlock opportunities for housing and economic development. Our Committee also found that a one-size-fits-all approach to high street regeneration does not work. Communities face different challenges and opportunities. We therefore recommend better tools and frameworks to help local authorities to identify the interventions that are most likely to succeed in their area, and to ensure that investment is targeted effectively.
The Committee also heard consistent concerns about the operation of the planning system. Owners, developers and community organisations told us that lengthy waits for planning and listed building consent can discourage investment and delay projects that would otherwise bring historic buildings back into use. We heard evidence that many listed building consent applications are ultimately approved, but decisions are often delayed, creating uncertainty and additional costs. Although recent reforms are welcome, the Government must go further to streamline processes, encourage the wider use of the local listed building consent orders, strengthen conservation capacity in local authorities and promote earlier engagement between applicants and planning authorities.
Financial barriers remain a major obstacle to the preservation of built heritage. Witnesses repeatedly highlighted the fact that the current VAT regime often makes repairing and reusing existing buildings more expensive than demolishing them and starting again. While works on residential buildings and some conversions are zero-rated for VAT, owners of listed buildings are still required to pay VAT at 20% on construction and alteration works. We found that that creates a difficult incentive that runs counter to heritage protection and wider environmental objectives. We also heard of the pressures that that regime places on historic high streets and the businesses that occupy heritage buildings. We therefore urge the Government to review and reform that tax framework so that it better supports retrofit and reuse, conservation and the future of our high streets.
We also heard compelling evidence about the challenges facing churches and other listed places of worship. England has over 370,000 listed buildings, almost 15,000 of which are churches and religious buildings. Many are not only important heritage assets but vital community spaces, providing support, activities and services far beyond their primary religious function. However, many of those buildings face significant financial pressures. Witnesses raised concerns about the reduction in support previously available through the listed places of worship grant scheme, and the potential impact of its replacement with a new grant scheme, the places of worship renewal fund.
Although targeting funding at areas facing the greatest challenge is an understandable objective, we concluded that there is a real risk that places of worship of exceptional historic and architectural significance could be disadvantaged if heritage value is not given sufficient weight. We therefore call on the Government to ensure that the new funding arrangements provide adequate support for repair and conservation works and properly recognise the national and local importance of those irreplaceable buildings. The loss of an historic church is not simply the loss of a place of worship; it is often the loss of a key part of a community’s history, identity and shared heritage.
The future of built heritage depends on people. One major risk identified in our inquiry was the shortage of specialist skills across the sector. From traditional crafts and conservation skills to planning, expertise and heritage management, there is an urgent need to attract and train the next generation. I was particularly impressed by an innovative heritage skills programme in the north-west, offered by the Hopwood Foundation and implemented at His Majesty’s Prison Thorn Cross, which can create pathways into employment while helping to address workforce shortages. The Government should build on those successes and work with the sector to expand opportunities for training and careers.
We also heard that many small and specialist heritage buildings struggle to make full use of existing arrangements, despite being responsible for passing on many of the traditional skills that the sector relies on. Greater flexibility in the apprenticeship system would allow businesses to pool apprentices, share training costs and collaborate more effectively. If we are serious about safeguarding our built heritage, we must ensure that the next generation of stonemasons, joiners, roofers, conservators and heritage specialists have clear pathways into these careers.
Ultimately, our report makes a simple argument. Heritage should not be viewed as a constraint on growth; it should be recognised as an enabler of growth. The Government now have an opportunity to adopt a more ambitious approach that will secure both the protection and potential of our built heritage for generations to come.
Tom Gordon (Harrogate and Knaresborough) (LD)
My constituency has loads of fantastic built heritage, including Knaresborough House, Knaresborough castle, Starbeck Baths and much more. I really enjoyed reading the report and noted the recommendation about safe harbour, where trusted bodies could temporarily take control of at-risk assets to stabilise them. The report does not mention town councils such as Knaresborough town council or Harrogate town council. Does the hon. Lady agree that they would be best placed to look after some of our much-loved built heritage?
Jo Platt
The hon. Member is absolutely right to mention councils and local authorities, which are trying to do so much work in the country. The report points out that every place will be different; it is about pulling on the expertise of local authorities and town councils to find what fits within particular areas. The hon. Gentleman has made a good point, and it is now up to the Government to read the report and look at best practice throughout the UK.
David Williams (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend for presenting this excellent report. In Stoke-on-Trent, we have declared a heritage emergency, but the restoration of our historic buildings is repeatedly held back by fragmented funding and the need to negotiate separately with numerous funding bodies. Does she agree that the Government should bring together the main Departments and heritage funders around one table in places such as Stoke-on-Trent, so that we can turn our beautiful yet endangered buildings into engines of regeneration?
Jo Platt
My hon. Friend makes an important point, which goes back to the previous question. The report has highlighted schemes that have worked for particular areas, such as the community ownership fund and heritage action zones, something we had in my area. These things pull on the expertise of partners, including local authorities and the community, by getting them around the table. Getting everyone around the table to make sure that funding goes where it is needed is an important factor that we are trying to lead on with this report.
Damian Hinds (East Hampshire) (Con)
I commend the hon. Lady for her clear and excellent presentation of this report. Sadly, there is not time for me to list all the very many great heritage assets in East Hampshire. The hon. Lady talked about the importance of heritage to tourism and the possibility of using some underused heritage assets for housing. Does she think there is also a case to be made for looking at how we can best use some of those assets for hotel and holiday accommodation?
Jo Platt
The right hon. Gentleman is a great contributor to the Culture, Media and Sport Committee, and it is an honour to sit alongside him there. I agree that there is significant scope for heritage buildings to play a bigger role in providing such things as hotel accommodation. One of our findings was that the best way to protect many historic buildings is to ensure that they remain occupied, economically viable and actively used. The report focuses on a reuse-first approach, rather than a housing-only approach. Where hotel accommodation can provide a sustainable future for historic buildings, it can support tourism and create local jobs and is an excellent way of bringing our heritage back into use.
Dr Rupa Huq (Ealing Central and Acton) (Lab)
I echo the right hon. Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds), my fellow Committee member, in praising my hon. Friend for doing such a brilliant job of presenting this report on behalf of all of us on the Committee. I also thank the excellent Committee staff, who helped me when I had to speak at the Night Time Economy Summit in Liverpool in February. There was a panel on this very subject—protecting heritage buildings— in a city that had UNESCO world heritage site status between 2004 and 2021. My question is really about the changing nature of these things; Liverpool’s status was taken away when the new Everton stadium spoilt the skyline.
How can we future-proof some of these things? The Committee staff helped me with my remarks at that Liverpool conference, where my right hon. Friend the Member for Makerfield (Andy Burnham), my hon. Friend’s new constituency neighbour and the future Prime Minister, also spoke, as did my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Angela Rayner), the former Deputy Prime Minister. I was being lobbied at the summit, and the point being made to me was that the United Nations also has something called intangible cultural heritage: stuff like human traditions and practices—
Dr Huq
My question requires a lot of context, Sir Desmond. I am springing it on my hon. Friend, so I do not want to just say, “Do you approve of this?”; I need to explain. Sorry—I am getting to the point.
Does my hon. Friend agree that there could be a way of knitting together heritage buildings and the intangible cultural aspects of value? For example, what about Wigan Casino and Northern Soul music? Could we find a way of mixing up the two?
Jo Platt
It is also an honour to sit alongside my hon. Friend on the Culture, Media and Sport Committee. She makes an important point, one that I referred to in my earlier remarks. The mill that I worked on was used for cultural and creative value, and there is a bit in the report about how we can connect those up. The report sparks the conversation about what fits in our individual towns, villages and cities. I look forward to working alongside her to continue that conversation.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the hon. Lady and her Select Committee for their many positive recommendations when it comes to the repair and conservation of shared heritage. Previous schemes have retained and restored churches and other shared heritage across the Province of Northern Ireland, including in my constituency. The listed places of worship grant scheme can do so much more. What discussions has the Select Committee had with the Northern Ireland Assembly to develop and deliver that much valued and important scheme?
Jo Platt
That was a major part of the report and the inquiry. I have visited two derelict churches over the last few weeks, including Sacred Heart only last week. We know that places of worship are among the most significant heritage assets in our communities. The Committee heard concerns about funding pressures and the impact of changes to the grant scheme. The Government have decided to replace the scheme with a new fund that prioritises areas in most need. However, there is a risk that that could disadvantage churches of real historical significance, as the report highlights. The Government need to make sure that funding is at least as generous under the new scheme as under the old one, and that religious buildings are continually prioritised.
Backbench Business
National Planning Policy Framework
(3 weeks, 6 days 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
Tessa Munt (Wells and Mendip Hills) (LD)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the impact of changes to the National Planning Policy Framework.
I am pleased to see you in the Chair, Sir Desmond. I am grateful for the time to introduce this debate on the impact of the changes to the national planning policy framework. I called for this debate following a decision affecting the village of Yatton in the north of the Wells and Mendip Hills constituency, with 190 homes set to be built on a site known as Rectory Farm, Yatton Batch. Yatton Batch is in flood zone 3a, which is the highest level of risk, according to the Environment Agency. The consequences of this decision affect not just the people of Yatton, as I believe it sets a precedent for every other community living with flood risk across this country.
I will give the Minister some context to the geography of my constituency, which matters enormously. Wells and Mendip Hills falls roughly in two parts. One part comprises the limestone Mendip hills and the rest, the majority of the constituency, is wetlands and coastal plains: the Somerset levels and the North Somerset levels. Fifty-one per cent of my constituency is less than 20 metres above sea level.
I will send the Minister a map, on which he will see that the Somerset levels are a man-made landscape. The monks, led by the Abbot of Glastonbury, drained the land hundreds of years ago by digging what locally we call “rhynes”, which is why the map shows the waterways as straight lines in my part of the world. It does not take a PhD in geography to work out that low-lying coastal wetlands are prone to flooding. It has taken centuries of careful management and regular maintenance of the local waterways to keep this land habitable at all.
Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)
On the subject of keeping land habitable, the hon. Lady will be familiar with the fact that the Lincolnshire fens, and particularly South Holland and The Deepings, are entirely flat, without even the undulation equivalent to the Mendip hills. Our land is drained, and much of it is reclaimed from the sea, yet there are perpetual attempts to put critical infrastructure on it, including solar, pylons and suchlike. That is incompatible, and those things cannot be reconciled. I entirely endorse what the hon. Lady says about the character of the land, its propensity to flood and what we should do with it.
Tessa Munt
I take the right hon. Gentleman’s point. I will suggest to the Minister that, if he wishes to pursue a policy of building on land that will almost certainly flood, we need to put those buildings on stilts. That is not impossible, and there is certainly one very beautiful house on the levels that sits on stilts.
Yatton, the village subject to the decision, sits within the North Somerset levels, barely 2 km from the Bristol channel. On Friday 12 June, the High Court handed down its judgment permitting the development of 190 homes in this flood-prone area, on a site that failed the flood risk sequential test. The judgment follows the NPPF exactly, as the judge had to, and prioritised building homes over protection from flooding. It imperils not only the new homes—I should explain that the judge said that homeowners threatened by flooding had sufficient time to vacate their houses before the floodwater reached them—but the homes and businesses in and around the Yatton site. The impact of flooding does not disappear just because people can get away safely. This is about property as well as people. The damage to wellbeing and mental health takes its toll on those affected, as does the damage to property, which can take months and sometimes years to remedy and replace.
I would not want the Minister to think that this is a case of nimbyism and anti-development sentiment by those in rural areas. My Lib Dem colleagues and I agree with the Government’s desire to meet the huge need for housing across the country. There are 12,800 people on the Homefinder list in Somerset, which covers 66% of my patch, and a similar proportion on the North Somerset list.
I am chair of the all-party parliamentary group on flooding and flooded communities. Many of our discussions centre on the Flood Re scheme, which was a great initiative that meant insurers could cover flooding claims and the premiums for home insurance in high flood risk areas were not astronomical. The scheme comes to an end in 2039, and the Government have been very clear that it will not be extended. As set out in legislation, homes built after 2009 are not covered by the scheme. As we get closer to that 2039 date, more and more homes built in high flood risk areas are not covered by the scheme and so risk becoming uninsurable and consequently unmortgageable. The consequences for developers and those who have already bought the homes will be awful. And the Yatton decision compounds the problems with the NPPF in allowing the need for home building to override common sense.
To press the point, it is very likely that residents of new homes built on floodplains, such as those in Yatton, will face flooding damage in the coming years. Not only will they not be able to make an insurance claim, but any new buyers will likely struggle to access a mortgage. Residents may well end up trapped, unable to sell a home that might cost them thousands of pounds in repairs every winter. The Minister knows the weather experts say that what we are experiencing now is the most stable weather that we are ever going to see.
I mentioned that the current neighbours would also be affected due to the simple fact that the floodwater must go somewhere. If developers choose to build up the land on which they wish to develop, the floodwater may well not hit those homes precisely, but will cause the existing homes and businesses in the area to be flooded more greatly. I have a lovely set of photographs of the land I am speaking about, which I will send to the Minister, showing exactly how it floods every year.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I commend the hon. Lady for the ambition she has put forward. Does she not agree that there is a risk of severe regulatory divergence? If the English planning system undergoes massive deregulation and introduces a faster, rules-based yes by default to major projects, capital will do what it always does and flow through the path of least resistance. The Government and the Minister need to ensure that the possibility she outlines for her constituents does not happen elsewhere.
Tessa Munt
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. The point I would like to make to the Minister is that, if developers choose to raise the level of the land on which they wish to build, we make a complete mockery of the Environment Agency’s work in relation to the LiDAR data that it uses to measure flood risk. There will be little pockets that are no longer in flood zone 3a, for example, but everybody else is then in a more problematic area for flooding. The current neighbours would be affected, because floodwater has to go somewhere. In the event of flooding, if the properties are lifted above sea level by raising the land, the displaced water goes straight into existing homes and businesses.
The Association of British Insurers has been clear that, while it supports the Government’s ambition to deliver 1.5 million homes, it has serious concerns about allowing developers to bypass the flood risk sequential test in areas at high risk of surface water flooding, which is precisely the kind of decision we have seen play out in Yatton. The scale of the risk to which it points is sobering.
The Environment Agency’s national assessment of flood and coastal erosion risk shows that 6.3 million homes in England are already at risk of flooding, 4.6 million of them from surface water alone. In just the first quarter of this year, insurers paid out £846 million in property claims, with the average weather-related claim reaching £6,040—the highest first quarter figure on record. Subsidence claims, often linked to the same extreme weather, rose 9% year on year to £17,820. Research commissioned by Aviva suggests that 11% of new homes built between 2022 and 2024 are already at risk of flooding, and that figure is projected to rise to one in seven by 2050, once climate change is factored in.
That is why I believe the Association of British Insurers, together with UK Finance and flood campaigners, has written directly to the Secretaries of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and for Housing, Communities and Local Government to raise the alarm. The message is simple: rather than weakening the sequential test, the Government should mandate sustainable drainage systems, finally implementing schedule 3 to the Flood and Water Management Act 2010. That legislation has been in the ether, unimplemented, for nearly 16 years. It is telling that 66% of the public already say that they do not believe the country or their local area is prepared for future flooding. Ignoring the industry that pays out when floods happen is really not the way to change people’s minds.
I put it to the Minister that Somerset council is required to deliver 75,000 new homes in the next 20 years, and I believe that North Somerset has to produce nearly 25,000 new homes in the next 15 years. To repeat something that one of my colleagues on Somerset council says, it has taken since the dawn of time for the population of the Somerset council area—not including the North Somerset council area—to reach 560,000. I am keen to know why the Minister and his Government believe that the population will grow by more than 75,000 people in the next 20 years. That is a 13% increase, when it has taken centuries to get to 560,000. It is a ridiculous population increase, and it is not realistic in the slightest. For context, the Office for National Statistics projects that the entire population of the United Kingdom will grow from around 70 million to around 72 million over the same period—a rise of just 2.8%.
I am the first to recognise that Wells and Mendip Hills is a lovely place to live—actually the best—but, even allowing for that huge appeal, I struggle to understand why the Government believe that such a disproportionately rural area will see growth at almost five times the national rate. The NPPF changes will affect much more than just flood risk—our area and its green spaces will be under pressure.
It seems especially disproportionate when I look at Bristol, my local city, which I love dearly. Its population is projected to grow by about 10%, which is again above the national average. It seems that those in Somerset and North Somerset will be asked to take a huge number of new residents. I do not know where they are coming from, and I cannot quite see how the Government have come to those figures. I would be grateful if the Minister could write to me on how his team has come to that assumption.
The last matter I would like to raise is that farmers run factories. Those factories are the agricultural land—it is just that we do not have roofs on them. That is no different from any other part of the country that has some sort of manufacturing. Farmers use fields, and they do not have roofs, so it is quite hard for people to spot the fact that they are food factories. In the interests of an honest debate, I acknowledge that many in the farming community welcome what is set out in the new NPPF, but that comes with real caveats. It is worth the House hearing what they are.
A lot of our greenhouses are more than 40 years old and in urgent need of modernisation, yet large glasshouse developments are still routinely treated as major infrastructure projects, which triggers huge delays that again undermine our domestic food production. My colleagues will need no second invitation on this point: food security is national security. I am really glad that the Government recognised that in February. Ensuring that our farmers can produce the food this country needs is of critical importance in what is a very unstable world.
Will the Minister consider the points that I have made and write to me about the population figures? I want to make absolutely certain that he does not misunderstand me; this is not a sentimental case for nature and green spaces. It is very realistic damage that is happening to Somerset.
Several hon. Members rose—
Sir Desmond Swayne (in the Chair)
Order. I impose a four-minute time limit on speeches.
Chris Hinchliff (North East Hertfordshire) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Sir Desmond. I declare an interest as chair of the all-party parliamentary group on council and social housing. I congratulate the hon. Member for Wells and Mendip Hills (Tessa Munt) on securing this very important debate.
On a personal basis, a debate on national planning policy feels like a very fitting bookend to the outgoing Administration. The issue of what gets built where defines our daily lives like no other issue, and I have found my first two years in this place defined by those debates. Without wanting to cast myself as a latter-day Cassandra, I shared early on my view that, try though Ministers might, there would be no appeasing the developer lobby—no amount of deregulation will ever satisfy them—and so it has proven, with the clamour for relaxed fire safety standards and the weakening of environmental policies, and for there to be less opportunity for ordinary people to influence decisions in the planning system, as loud as ever.
However, my views on the subject have changed. Today, I am not joining this debate to raise a series of detailed concerns about the latest redrafting of the NPPF—although I do still have such concerns, especially in relation to possible changes to the sequential test on surface water flooding and limits being imposed on local authorities to pursue more ambitious policies on climate and nature restoration. The point I really want to make today is that I believe we have reached a point where national planning policy is completely broken and the NPPF is beyond reform. After decades of deregulation, the genius of Labour’s post-war democratic settlement has been degraded and reduced to a system of fiendishly complex processes, combined with overwhelmingly negative outcomes, which, for all the world, seems to have been designed by an evil genius to drive all those involved mad.
When Lewis Silkin created the planning system that rebuilt this country from the ashes of world war two, he described the distinctly Labour vision for a policy that would meet “actual needs, democratically expressed.” Yet what the NPPF has achieved for years—I am afraid the latest iteration will be little different—is almost the precise opposite of Silkin’s idealism. Pretty much ever since the first version of the NPPF in 2012, what we have seen is the proliferation of speculative development across the country, with democratically produced local plans ridden roughshod over and housing built first and foremost for profit, not for people.
In fact, a national planning policy framework is not even an accurate name for what we have. There can be no plan-led system when national policy introduces the overwhelming likelihood of caveats to local plans through an ever stronger and equally inaccurately named presumption in favour of sustainable development, which in reality functions as a passport to permission for all but the very worst speculative schemes. This is not planning in any reasonable sense of the word—it is merely reacting.
Under the NPPF system, more and more of the initiative, the influence and the advantage lies with the vested interests of land promoters and major developers, whose private profit will never accord with the public good. And thus we have a national system in which the notion of affordable housing is a running joke, and in which the environment that politicians so often protest their love for is repeatedly trashed as a secondary matter compared to the unequally distributed benefits of growth. It is a national planning policy framework that overwhelmingly produces outcomes that lock us into car-dependent, unsustainable lifestyles, with polluted air that chokes the lungs of our children and costs the NHS billions, and utterly fails to secure public consent for the development we very desperately require to meet the needs of those stuck in temporary accommodation and in cramped, crowded and unsanitary conditions.
John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)
I apologise to the Minister; I am hopping between two different debates in two different Chambers. I told my constituents that I would make this point about planning policy in my area, which has fought for decades to protect the green belt. The introduction of the concept of the grey belt means that developers are now turning green belt into grey belt by dumping, cutting down trees and despoiling the area, and then applying for planning permission for development. The concept of grey belt has undermined all that we have spent decades campaigning for.
Chris Hinchliff
I agree with those concerns. As I understand it, many of the applications for grey belt are in fact on greenfield sites, and that needs to be addressed.
For all its labyrinthine processes, the NPPF makes a mockery of local democracy, which breeds disillusion and contempt for politics in this country. The system we have created through the NPPF traps communities in a never-ending cycle of adversarial confrontations with corporations that see our local landscapes as easy pickings and cream off much of the wealth of new developments, while leaving the public to carry the majority of the costs. The section 106 mechanism they rely on is not only obscure, but demonstrably incapable of securing the investment in the infrastructure—GPs, schools, sports grounds and public transport—necessary to keep pace with population growth, when hundreds of new houses are bolted on to towns that have already seen almost all their facilities closed.
The housing the NPPF produces is often both miserabilist and identikit. It is seemingly designed to erase local identity and shorn of local traditions, with no space for community and with a built environment that is best described as unhappiness given physical form. All in all, the damage that successive iterations of the NPPF have done to our country is difficult to forgive. Now is the time to consign the NPPF to the dustbin of history where it belongs and start afresh instead of making further amendments.
The one positive note I can strike is that it is not difficult to imagine something far, far better. We need to return to Labour’s democratic principles, stop treating the public as a problem to be silenced and embrace them as a source of optimistic solutions for meeting the needs of the future. It is time to replace the constant nonsense that traduces our constituents as nimbys, and to put power in their hands so that they can decide where and how to meet the housing needs of their communities in a way that expresses their hopes and priorities for the future. It is time to bring back architects in every local planning authority, working with each community to shape plans for future development on an appropriate scale for each settlement, and with a renaissance in the local vernacular that strengthens and reinvigorates the culture and identity of each unique town, village and city. In short, it is time to ditch the NPPF and build a new system that puts power in the hands of the people and allows planners to genuinely plan with communities.
Damian Hinds (East Hampshire) (Con)
It is a great pleasure to see you in the Chair, Sir Desmond. I congratulate the hon. Member for Wells and Mendip Hills (Tessa Munt). I will try to cover four aspects of the NPPF in just short of four minutes. The first is what the NPPF says on intentional unauthorised development. I welcome the move towards stronger wording in that area. I should stress that I am not talking about a house extension or somebody accidentally not complying with regulations, but entire new dwellings and wilful non-compliance. I welcome the move from material consideration, as it is known, to substantial weight, but I fear it does not go far enough. As I said in my submission to the consultation, it should be set out very clearly that
“wilfully ignoring planning consent requirements will not result in retrospective planning permissions being granted”,
and that this cannot in normal circumstances be overridden by personal circumstance arguments. Other things could be done in support, such as making sure that stop notices are easier to issue, and restrictions on things like delivery of construction materials and mobile homes to unlawful sites.
The Minister and I have discussed the NPPF housing formula many times across this Floor. He is a very diligent Minister and, although he always robustly defends the Government line, which is kind of annoying, he always does it with great courtesy. I thank him for that. The problem is that this formula has meant a massive increase in housing numbers for the countryside. It is not a north-south thing; it is an urban to countryside shift. Whereas the numbers have gone up by 50% for the country overall, in East Hampshire they have doubled. When that happens overnight, no one has a five-year land supply that can deal with it, so we get speculative developments.
That has been brought into sharp relief by the issue of water supply, which has particularly come to prominence since South East Water’s submission to the Basingstoke and Deane local plan. The Basingstoke area that it talks about—zone 4, as it is known—extends to Alton and around my constituency. The Environment Agency has stopped the extension of the abstraction licence at Greywell Fen because of the degradation of that globally rare site of special scientific interest. I met South East Water recently to discuss this. There are questions outstanding, particularly regarding parts of my constituency. Clearly, action should have happened before now, but a doubling of the housing target hugely exacerbates the issue. Large- scale development should not go ahead unless and until this issue is resolved.
Jim Shannon
I commend the right hon. Gentleman on his speech. I know that the Minister is not responsible for my constituency across the water, but does the right hon. Gentleman feel that recommendations and good things learned on the mainland should be shared with us back home to ensure that we do not have the same problems that seem to be repeating over and over again here?
Damian Hinds
I agree. There is no practical limit on what we can learn from one another in the home nations of the United Kingdom.
I want to come on to what is known as policy L3, which concerns the minimum density requirements for areas around train stations. I have written about this in my submission to the consultation. I fear that a policy that is, on the face of it, sensible—“Let’s have people living close to train stations where they can commute to work or whatever it might be”—is really designed for urban town areas. But it will also have an impact on market towns in places like East Hampshire and in villages that just happen to have a train station. The sorts of densities discussed in the NPPF would be wholly inappropriate for market towns like Alton in East Hampshire and rural villages like Bentley or Rowland’s Castle.
Finally, I want to address how the NPPF interacts with local government reorganisation. I am totally opposed to the Government’s top-down reorganisation of Hampshire local government for multiple reasons, including the fact that it splits up an area with an identity—namely, East Hampshire. It puts the lower parts into a new Portsmouth super-council area and the rest of East Hampshire into this vast new Mid Hants unitary. Local plans have been built around existing district council geographies. For councils that are part-way through the process and about to have this enormous reorganisation thrust upon them, what is the guidance from the Government on how they should proceed?
Olly Glover (Didcot and Wantage) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Desmond. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Wells and Mendip Hills (Tessa Munt) for securing a debate on this important topic very much in the spirit of end-of-term relaxation.
I want to start with some of the positives of the new draft NPPF. My district councils locally have welcomed its structure, usability and the good aim, at least, of a more streamlined planning system and reduction of duplication. They also welcome the separation of plan making and decision-making guidance. Overall, the aim of speeding up the plan-making process to 13 months is welcome. Local plans take many years to be produced and involve a huge amount of resource. I am certainly interested to hear from the Minister whether he feels that the Planning Inspectorate has the resources to cope with an increase in the number of plans to examine and assess. The right hon. Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds) made a very important point about the implications of local government reorganisation.
Significant concerns remain about how the Government seem to be moving away from local decision making and community empowerment. As this new scheme of delegation will reduce the input of elected councillors in planning decisions, involving communities and needs specific to local geography become even more important, yet there are concerns that spatial development strategies will be agreed to far away from communities.
More could be done to clarify the planning system and permissions for houses in multiple occupation. Such properties are often associated with parking and waste issues and, unlike larger HMOs, they may not be subject to requirements on parking provision, room sizes or amenity space, potentially resulting in poorer living conditions. Requiring planning permission for all HMOs for a single use class could help address those issues by ensuring consistent standards.
The environment is a big concern. The NPPF has insufficient focus on our climate and environmental obligations, and certainly not enough on flood and extreme temperature resilience and standards for homes. As highlighted by Wildlife and Countryside Link, the draft NPPF would limit local ambition and powers by preventing local planning authorities from requiring biodiversity net gain above the statutory 10% minimum. That seems like a retrograde step.
Finally, my biggest concern is one I have raised with the Minister many times and in many different forums: the Government’s ambitious housing targets are not being supported by the same focus on the infrastructure and public services that will be needed, which makes it harder to get local communities invested in the importance of more housing. In Oxfordshire, where the rate of housing growth has been extremely fast, the challenge is ensuring that infrastructure such as doctors, schools, public transport and affordable housing is available to support our growing population.
Development should remain plan-led and be guided by evidence of local need, not by market forces alone. That is my biggest concern about both Government policy in general and the NPPF in particular. I hope the Minister will add to his previous comments on what the Government will do to ensure that our house building targets and population growth are supported by infra- structure and public services.
Brian Mathew (Melksham and Devizes) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Desmond. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Wells and Mendip Hills (Tessa Munt) for securing this important debate. Planning and local development is one of the most commonly raised issues in my email inbox, as I am sure is the case for many others in the room.
First, I would like to make it clear that I am completely aware of the dire need for housing in this country. Many young people have expressed to me their fears that they will never get a foot on the property ladder, or that they are having to move away from the communities they know and love to find affordable places to rent. Affordable housing is a need, not a luxury.
However, new homes do not need to come at the cost of the community that is already there, and nor should they be placed on flood plains. Local people and local elected officials should have a role in deciding the future of their area, because they best understand it. When local people are given the opportunity to help shape their future, it can be a roaring success. In the village of Holt, in my constituency, a neighbourhood plan shaped the development of a derelict, unused tannery site into an award-winning mixed-use development, combining homes and new commercial space, while still preserving the village’s distinct character and acknowledging its history. Meanwhile, in Seend, near Devizes, the village’s community land trust has delivered affordable homes for local residents, built to the highest passive house standards of energy efficiency. That demonstrates what rural communities can achieve by working with partners, such as local councils and Homes England, for the benefit of residents and the environment.
Although there is a lot of good in the framework, I am particularly concerned that it fails to commit to new homes being zero-carbon or held to the highest energy efficiency standards, as was shown to be possible by the development in Seend. It also contains no clear commitment to deliver actually affordable homes, and it risks encouraging more executive housing to make more money for developers, while failing to tackle the housing crisis.
I welcome the proposed presumption in favour of development near railway stations. Transport-oriented development is precisely the kind of planning approach needed to move away from car-dependent housing estates located far from town centres.
Tessa Munt
It is a very good idea to have development near railway stations. However, I have another application on the horizon in Yatton, which is the village I was discussing earlier, that involves a plan to build on the railway station car park. Does my hon. Friend think that that is a good idea?
Brian Mathew
It does sound most odd, if I may say so.
That principle lies at the heart of the Bath and Wiltshire metro proposal, which I support. It has the potential to unlock brownfield regeneration in Melksham town centre, revitalise the riverside and strengthen the high street through sustainable, rail-connected growth. However, if that ambition is to be realised, local areas must have access to the resources needed to develop robust transport business cases, masterplans and infra- structure programmes. I am therefore concerned that the removal of funding for sub-national transport bodies risks creating a significant obstacle to the station upgrades, service improvements and strategic transport planning required to support the housing and regeneration opportunities that the policy seeks to encourage. Without adequate investment in the transport network itself, the benefits of transport-oriented development may be difficult to deliver in much of the country.
John Milne (Horsham) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Desmond. First, I thank the Minister for his assistance in progressing the local plan in my constituency. Horsham faced a unique problem with water neutrality, which the previous Government showed no sign of ever grappling with, and I am grateful for his personal involvement in that.
However, when it comes to the national house building strategy, I have to be critical. Difficulty with obtaining planning permission is only one, and no longer even the most important, of the many obstacles to house building, so why do we obsess over it to the exclusion of all else? Local targets are set through a compulsory process called the standard method, under which an area that has high local house prices, but only modest local wages, will have steeper housing targets. That formula is a terrible way to assess local housing need in practice, but its worst aspect is how it destroys local authorities’ negotiating power against developers.
Like most planning authorities, Horsham district council builds very few council houses directly, so the vast majority of its new housing stock must come from private developers. Developers are not stupid; they know that if a council has a target to build 1,800 homes each and every year—a target that Horsham may face—it will have to say yes to practically every site put in front of it, no matter whether a site was rejected the year before. Try explaining that to residents.
Developers with options for the land bid against each other, with a price based on the highest possible outcome, but achieving that price means them having to build zero social rent homes and lots of highly priced, executive homes. That is a bizarre case of competition only ever driving prices up, not down. Incredibly, in Horsham, we would be better off if we negotiated a monopoly for a single company to develop the whole district. That is why we have the paradox of having a chronic housing shortage at the same time as 1.5 million unbuilt houses with planning permission.
Meanwhile, as collateral damage in this process, we are ripping apart local democracy. Councils are forced, with zero local consent, to approve sites that are deficient in transport and water supply and that are mostly on greenfield sites. Local authorities have to take the word of statutory consultees as gospel; even where authorities know perfectly well that land will flood, if the Environment Agency says it will not, that is the end of it.
I know that the Minister is committed to solving the national housing problem, and I wholeheartedly support him in that, but the current situation is all sacrifice with no benefit. The sites we approve today will sit on the housing market like a dead-weight for years to come. High land prices are being locked in for wasteful schemes that take up three times the land that they need to. We need a reset, so I hope the Minister will agree to meet me to consider alternative solutions.
Alex Brewer (North East Hampshire) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Sir Desmond. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Wells and Mendip Hills (Tessa Munt) for securing this debate.
It is clearly essential to build homes. One reason why I am sitting in this place is my work to support victims of domestic abuse. For those, often with children, who are on a six-month stay in a refuge while fleeing the most dreadful violence, a secure home is the first step towards a new, safe future. However, the Government have introduced no targets for council or social housing, despite the Liberal Democrats making many calls for them to do so. The dreadful shortage left as the legacy of successive Conservative Governments is, at the very least, not being remedied by this Labour Government. That problem needs fixing, and the NPPF changes not only do not address it, but open up a raft of other problems.
The Conservative Administrations that previously ran Hart district council and Basingstoke and Deane borough council failed to produce local plans. That left those areas subject to speculative development granted on appeal, resulting in the building of large housing estates on the edges of our towns and villages, with no accompanying infrastructure. To make the best of a bad situation, the Liberal Democrats on Hart district council introduced a local plan, which, crucially, meant that houses were built sustainably on brownfield land. When the Lib Dems took joint control of Basingstoke and Deane borough council, a local plan was prioritised and progressed.
However, this Government’s new housing targets have rendered those new plans all but redundant. Those council areas are now easy targets for entirely inappropriate housing developments. When the balance tips in favour of appeal, it is not the people but the developers who benefit. In Basingstoke and Deane, planning permission for around 6,000 new homes has already been granted. In Hart, the major developer working on the biggest housing project has slowed down building: instead of building and selling 200 houses at a time, it is now building 50 to protect its profits. The new houses are no more affordable—in fact, properties in North East Hampshire are some of the most expensive outside London—but under the Government’s housing policies, developers are being allowed to land-bank: to push through application after application, despite the lack of infrastructure, and to hold on to land for years or decades as it increases in value.
Applications come in for a raft of inappropriate places, and all the while, there is no statutory consultee for our most important resource. Water is out biggest concern, and it is absent from the Government’s plans. South East Water, which supplies fresh water to most of North East Hampshire, produced a five-year plan in autumn 2024 that is largely a work of fiction, citing a new pipeline that would supply new and existing homes that would come online in spring 2025. Nobody believed that that could be completed in six months, but Ofwat has no powers to compel South East Water to publish a plan that is in any way based in reality.
The consequences of this regulatory and legislative failure sit with local people and the environment. Failure to supply local fresh water has obvious consequences, but the environment also suffers. We have heard already about how the Environment Agency has cancelled the supply of water in Greywell, yet South East Water continues to abstract from the site.
Claire Young (Thornbury and Yate) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Desmond. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Wells and Mendip Hills (Tessa Munt) for securing this debate.
My constituency is large and rural, containing the towns of Thornbury, Yate and Chipping Sodbury, as well as numerous villages and hamlets, and stretches from the internationally designated Severn estuary all the way to the Cotswold escarpment. A large part of the countryside that surrounds those communities is designated green belt, with all the protections that that used to bring, but now that protection is under threat.
Before I go further, I will provide some context. Under the current administration, South Gloucestershire council recognises the need for new housing and has developed a plan to deliver its housing need, which recently went through its examination in public. More than that, the council recognises the importance of homes for social rent and has been punching above its weight in their provision. With around 0.6% of the population of England outside London, it delivered 1.6% of total new social rent completions last year.
However, there is an implicit deal with local people in that local plan, which delivers homes while protecting the remaining countryside from speculative development. The Government’s grey belt policy fundamentally threatens that. Green belt land will now be parcelled up into cells for assessment, and it will be difficult to show an individual cell’s contribution.
The changes to the framework around the grey belt essentially make purposes C and E void, and particularly C, which protects countryside from encroachment. The danger is that pockets of land will be considered in isolation and be judged only to contribute to purpose C. Indeed, the 2022 West of England combined authority report, in the local plan evidence, showed that the primary reason for just about all the land in the local green belt is purpose C.
However, the cumulative impact of developing those pockets of land would degrade the green belt as a whole. Some of our green belt is very narrow, and it will only become more so if this is allowed to happen. Our towns and villages will slowly be swallowed up by Bristol, and the distinctiveness of our communities will be lost. My constituents do not want that, and I suspect that the good people of Bristol do not want it either, although some hon. Members may think otherwise.
The Government rightly want to speed up housing delivery, but indiscriminate housing built by big developers with no regard for the environment or the people living nearby is not the answer. Ironically, far from increasing the speed of housing delivery, as the Government claim it will, in my area the grey belt changes the level of risk, creating more delays by distracting planning officers from the planned sites and from the Government’s new town proposal. Time will be wasted arguing with speculative developers about what constitutes grey belt, when it could be spent delivering local housing need through the local plan.
I urge the Minister to listen to hon. Members across the Chamber, who are rightly raising concerns, and to advise the new Cabinet and the incoming Prime Minister that rural voices must be heard, and the NPPF revisited.
Andrew George (St Ives) (LD)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Wells and Mendip Hills (Tessa Munt) on securing the debate, and all other Members for their excellent contributions, which I strongly endorse. I particularly wish to highlight the contribution of the hon. Member for North East Hertfordshire (Chris Hinchliff), which I hope was a bid to catapult him into becoming Secretary of State under the new regime—I would certainly strongly support the approach he is taking.
A lot of people have referred to the inequity and inappropriateness of the way in which the Government have introduced national targets and the manner in which they have imposed them, through the national planning policy framework. It certainly reinforces the weakness of the whole system, because it is based on a delusion that private developers will collude with the Government in driving down the price of their finished product.
During my nine-year sabbatical from this place, I was chief executive of a registered social landlord—a community land trust—and tried to deliver in those circumstances, so I am certainly aware of the difficulties in trying to meet the need for affordable homes. My primary point is that the national planning policy framework has fundamentally weakened the rural exception policy, which was introduced in the early ’90s under planning policy guidance 3. That was the first time that planning had switched in principle from “planning use” to “user”, and took the user into account so it was meeting local housing need. That has been productive in a number of areas, especially in Cornwall, where it has for many years been the primary source for the delivery of affordable homes within the duchy.
The problem is that because of the way in which the framework has been brought in and because local authorities can no longer demonstrate that they can meet their five-year land supply, all areas that previously could be designated as rural exception sites to meet affordable housing needs can no longer be designated as such. A lot of them have been converted to open-market housing developments. I think that impact was unintended by the Minister, but it is entirely counterproductive, because in many rural areas, the primary means by which affordable housing could be delivered is now not being used. The planning system is fuelled by greed rather than need, and as long as we have weaknesses like that in the system, we cannot meet housing need.
Gideon Amos (Taunton and Wellington) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Sir Desmond. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Wells and Mendip Hills (Tessa Munt) and all the hon. Members who have contributed today, including my hon. Friends the Members for St Ives (Andrew George), for Thornbury and Yate (Claire Young), for Horsham (John Milne), for Didcot and Wantage (Olly Glover), for North East Hampshire (Alex Brewer) and for Melksham and Devizes (Brian Mathew).
One of the abiding themes of the debate is that water and other infrastructure seem to escape the demanding targets that are applied to the delivery of housing. We need an infrastructure-first approach in which infrastructure is as prioritised as housing. The Liberal Democrats welcome the ambition to deliver more homes, particularly the 150,000 social and council rent homes that the country needs, which we established as a target in our manifesto. But the right way to deliver those homes is by working with local communities and trusting them, not through more centralisation into Whitehall. Housing targets, for us, should be established firmly in a community-led process.
The incoming Prime Minister has talked a lot about devolution and giving power back to local communities, and he is right to do so. Communities know what works for their area, but this proposed framework does the opposite, stripping power away from local decision makers rather than handing it to them.
The proposed framework comes off the back of the recent regulations and direction that mean that decisions, both small and large, are now removed from local councillors, so that they have no power or control over those decisions. It also means that proposed developments such as those at Orchard Portman near Taunton—where 1,100 acres of farms were sold off by the Crown Estate to a house builder without the usual return of payments to the public purse being required in the event of planning permission—could be decided in Whitehall, not by our elected counsellors in Somerset.
For all applications now, the draft NPPF, which was recently out for consultation, is filled with policies that weaken local plans and community involvement. It is a power grab by central Government. Across the proposed new framework document, that centralising instinct repeats itself, starting with the presumption in favour of sustainable development. Today, that presumption is a backstop, applying only where the local plan is absent or out of date, or where there is no five-year land supply. That rewards communities for investing in an up to date local plan. That presumption in favour of sustainable development is now to be abolished; instead, policies S3, S4 and S5 would impose a de facto presumption in favour of development in every circumstance for certain kinds of development. That begs the question: will councils continue to invest all their time and effort in local plan preparation?
The same instinct runs through proposals on the weight to be given to different policy considerations, giving the same weight to housing, economic development, and heritage and landscape, leaving Historic England to raise concerns about how those will be balanced. It could mean that the historic setting of the Wellington monument on Oldway Road in my constituency, currently subject to appeal, could be another victim of these proposed policies. That approach could also be in contravention of the well-known wording in the Planning (Listed Buildings and Conservation Areas) Act 1990 that “special regard” will be paid to preserving heritage.
Nowhere is the centralisation of such decisions in Whitehall’s grasp going further than in the green belt. The Town and Country Planning Association has called the framework “unprecedentedly permissive” for good reason. Three elements combine to have that effect. First, the standard method, where 0.8% of the existing housing stock is applied as a multiplier and then a further multiplier is applied according to areas of high house prices. By definition, green belts constrain supply; that is their purpose. Therefore, they are areas of higher prices. In short, the standard method takes the consequence of protecting a place as a justification for building more on it. That cannot be logical or acceptable.
Rural councils have therefore been subject to much higher housing targets. For example, in Somerset, as my hon. Friend the Member for Wells and Mendip Hills put across very well, the 75,000 new dwellings will come as a surprise in terms of population growth compared with what has ever been achieved in the past. Urban areas where regeneration is needed have seen their targets reduced.
The second element driving development in rural green fields is green belt policy GB7. In short, that means that a developer can secure consent anywhere in the green belt, regardless of what the local plan says, on condition that it is near a town with a railway station. Ironically, an area with no green belt might be better protected because it is not subject to those policies to allow development around railway stations.
The third and final part of the policy that leads to this greenfield development is GB2 for the grey belt. Few of us, and certainly not the Liberal Democrats, would object to local communities deciding that underused green belt land is degraded and could be released for development. But this policy overrides that local plan process, and disapplies protections against encroachment on the countryside, removing villages from the green-belt protections that they have had for decades and generations.
Andrew George
As my hon. Friend is aware, I am very fortunate to have secured a place in the ballot for private Members’ Bills, and my Bill will be on affordable homes. The details have not been written, so there is an opportunity to work on that with him, and indeed with the Secretary of State. I am very keen to do so and to adapt a number of those policies so that it provides a framework within which the Government can work with Parliament to improve and adjust planning policy to achieve the desirable aims.
Gideon Amos
My hon. Friend makes a very important point. He reminds me that, frankly, I struggle with the fact that such a momentous and significant policy instrument is going through Parliament without a vote. It can hardly be right that these major policy changes, which will unleash development all over the country and reverse decades-old planning policies, will not be subject to a vote, considering that we quite rightly spend weeks and months going through Bills.
I am very grateful that my hon. Friend has chosen to prioritise these issues and is bringing them forward in his private Member’s Bill. I wish him well. I know that the Minister always works constructively across the House, and his work is appreciated for that. I know the Minister will work with my hon. Friend the Member for St Ives on his private Member’s Bill, as of course will I.
Together, the existing and proposed frameworks begin to look like a greenfield-first approach. The golden rules, which would rightly require more affordable and social housing where green belt is released, are absolutely right. But the Government have consulted on allowing viability assessments to potentially undermine that. I encourage the Minister to say something on whether land should escape the golden rules requiring more social housing just because it has been previously developed. The binning of the garden city principles in the draft is equally damaging. They are the very foundation of what made the new post-war towns, such as Milton Keynes with its famous 22 million trees, some of the best places to live. That is no doubt a bit of drafting by those who know the cost of everything and the value of nothing.
Similar centralising is proposed on nature and climate. National development management policies, along with constraints on local standard setting, will stop councils exceeding the statutory 10% of biodiversity net gain. Again, proposed policy PM13 will prevent councils from setting more ambitious energy targets. We saw the folly of that under the previous Government, who refused to continue with the zero-carbon homes programme. If they had continued that, and we had had solar panels on every house built since then, we could have avoided the need for an entire 900 MW power station—perhaps a small nuclear reactor or a gas-fired power station.
Finally, as my hon. Friend the Member for Wells and Mendip Hills pointed out, policy F5, paragraph 2(b)(ii), would create a new exemption from the sequential test for sites at risk of surface water flooding. As my hon. Friend said, the insurance industry has pointed out that there could be as many as 400,000 mortgage prisoners in the future, unable to afford insurance as a result of these kinds of policies.
To conclude, the Liberal Democrats are firmly committed to delivering the housing that we and our communities need, but placing all the emphasis on increasing permissions for private sector homes that few can afford is not the answer. We know that that will not reduce—and has not reduced—prices to make homes affordable. New homes are only 5% of the market, after all. With 13,000 homes with planning permission unbuilt in Somerset and 359,000 empty homes in the country, we should be redoubling our efforts to deliver on both of those fronts first.
What a community-led approach really means—and this framework lacks almost anything about community involvement—is homes that people can afford: council and social rent homes, alongside rent-to-own to help people get on to the housing ladder. The environment, our people and our communities are not the blockers of development; they are—or at least should be—the reason for development, and we can enhance the life chances of both if we get it right.
Gareth Bacon (Orpington) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Desmond, and to take part in this debate about the impact of changes to the national planning policy framework. At the outset, I thank the hon. Member for Wells and Mendip Hills (Tessa Munt) for securing this important debate. She made a strong speech, particularly focused on the danger of building in areas prone to flooding. I also thank the 10 hon. and right hon. Members who have made speeches—and the three who have made interventions—so far in this debate.
The NPPF is the rulebook by which our planning system is guided. It is an extensive and comprehensive statement of the Government of the day’s policy direction, and perhaps the clearest signal to developers, local authorities and local people about how a Government will approach changes to their surrounding built environment. It covers everything from roads to housing, local communities to land use, and provides the overarching checks, balances and direction in the planning system. We are not in blanket opposition to everything that the Government are seeking to do with the NPPF. However, we do have significant concerns about some aspects of it, and I will focus on those in my remarks today.
Since coming to power two years ago, this Government have twice proposed revisions to the NPPF, both times with severe consequences for our green spaces, rural towns and villages, and local democratic voices. In their first revisions, made just before Christmas 2024, the Government’s policy direction was clear. Unfortunately, what was on offer was an unwelcome gift of urban sprawl. That was because the Government made it easier for local authorities to release green-belt land for development in more ways than one.
The first, and most obvious, was the announcement that new golden rules would need to be met to expand on to the green belt. That effectively invited developers to test the waters by highlighting that the NPPF stated that, where a development complied with the golden rules, local authorities should give “significant weight in favour” of approving the scheme.
The second release came from the Government’s spurious grey belt designation. Concocted in the bowels of Marsham Street, “grey belt” is a disingenuous label. The Prime Minister has told us that it means low-quality land made up of “disused car parks”, but that is far from the truth, because, for too many sites, grey belt is simply a façade for releasing green-belt sites for urban sprawl and overdevelopment.
That is backed by research in December 2025 by the Campaign to Protect Rural England, which showed that, a year after the first NPPF reforms, of the 13 developments of 10 or more homes approved by Government planning inspectors on so-called grey-belt land, 88% of those 1,250 homes
“will be built on previously undeveloped countryside”—
not disused petrol stations, low-quality land or any other trumped-up example taken straight from a Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government press release, just our countryside. Worse, those developments make up more than 90% of homes granted planning permission on grey-belt sites by inspectors; a further 21 smaller schemes, totalling no more than 91 homes, comprised the remainder.
That is not the only attack on our green spaces. The 2024 NPPF revisions also reintroduced mandatory top-down housing targets across England by removing the word “advisory” from the relevant paragraph concerning housing targets, alongside references to exceptional circumstances for alternative approaches to determining local housing targets.
As other Members have said, that came alongside a new standard method for housing targets. The hon. Members for Horsham (John Milne) and for Wells and Mendip Hills highlighted some of the bizarre assumptions underpinning the housing targets generated by the new standard method, alongside some of its counterproductive outcomes. When examined together, those disproportionately redistributed top-down housing targets on to rural areas from urban areas. For example, under the Government’s targets, housing numbers were cut by 11% in London, 38% in Birmingham and 55% in Coventry, while increasing by 106% in the New Forest, 199% in North Yorkshire and 487% in Westmorland and Furness.
That is particularly concerning given that major cities—and not least here in central London—have the infrastructure needed to support development. However, even in Greater London, although the collective target has been reduced by 11%, that has been achieved by sharp drops in urban inner London, whereas in the more rural outer-London areas, huge increases have been imposed. For example, in my London borough of Bromley, which is the largest borough in Greater London and is mostly rural, the target has been increased by 400%.
The conclusion is inescapable. The NPPF changes show very clearly that this Government are determined to build all over the green belt. What has been the result of these reforms? It certainly has not been large amounts of extra housing. As I pointed out in this place yesterday, the Government’s own figures show that the number of net new additional dwellings in England was just 208,600 in Labour’s first year in power—a 6% drop from 2023-24 under the last Conservative Government’s final year in office. Indeed, the Government admitted that they will not hit the target through their own net additional dwelling forecasts, predicting that by 2029 they will have fallen well short.
It does not have to be this way. The Opposition recognise the need to build more homes, and we made it clear from the start of this Parliament that we are broadly supportive of the ambition to build many more homes. However, the Government’s actions, through some of their revisions to the NPPF, are the wrong way to go about it. A future Conservative Government will employ a genuine brownfield-first approach rather than releasing swathes of green belt or relabelling it under the murky and disingenuous designation of “grey belt”. We will not just pay lip service to brownfield development, but prioritise it and make it easier. That can and will be done.
The CPRE reported that a large proportion of England’s housing could be swiftly met using brownfield land that already has planning permission, without encroaching on undeveloped greenfield or green belt land. It estimates that there is enough brownfield land to build 1.41 million homes in England, based on the most up-to-date data from local planning authorities’ brownfield land registers up to 2024. That amounts to 93% of the Government’s parliamentary target. Furthermore, it has shown that England’s brownfield sites are increasing in number, land area and minimum net dwellings—up 54%, 6% and 34% respectively between 2018 and 2024.
That is why, not for the first time, I press the Minister to go further and faster in helping local authorities and developers to access brownfield sites rather than freeing up our green belt and steamrollering over local democracy, local voices and local communities. Recent history shows that this approach can work. If the Government want to see urban regeneration or densification done right, they can follow Conservative examples and pursue brownfield-first and not greenfield-first. We will not only abandon the Government’s offensive on our green spaces, but harmonise supply and demand-side policies.
I will finish with a small note on that point. As the Government continue to tweak the NPPF, they are doing nothing to back first-time buyers, families and downsizers by axing demand-side schemes and cutting stamp duty relief. There is no point in delivering supply-side reforms if the demand is not there to make it worth while.
To conclude, it is evident from the speeches here today and the evidence before us that the impact of recent reforms to the national planning policy framework has failed to deliver more homes, failed to protect our green belt, failed to support the housing market, failed to make brownfield sites viable and failed to deliver for voters. Regardless of the outcome of that, the Minister is a man I have a great deal of respect for. I agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds) that he is a decent and thoughtful man, and I sincerely wish him well in the pending reshuffle. Regardless of its outcome, he has the chance to raise this with whomever his new boss will be after next week’s coronation. I hope that he grasps the opportunity with alacrity and delivers the right homes in the right places and with the right infrastructure—just as the country deserves.
The Minister for Housing and Planning (Matthew Pennycook)
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Sir Desmond. I congratulate the hon. Member for Wells and Mendip Hills (Tessa Munt) on securing this important debate, and I thank the Backbench Business Committee for granting it. I also thank all hon. Members who have participated in this wide-ranging debate, and the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington (Gideon Amos) and the hon. Member for Orpington (Gareth Bacon) for their contributions. The degree of praise that I received from Opposition Members is slightly damning of my chances in any upcoming reshuffle, but I thank them for their kind words.
Members raised a wide range of concerns and asked many questions. In the time available to me, I will respond to as many as possible, but I will concentrate on those relating to the national planning policy framework. Issues such as the national scheme of delegation of planning functions—our modernisation of planning committees—are outside the framework, but I am more than happy to have a conversation with my hon. Friend the Member for North East Hertfordshire (Chris Hinchliff) and others about them.
The national planning policy framework sets out the Government’s planning policies for England and how they should be applied. It makes it clear that the purpose of the planning system is to contribute to the achievement of sustainable development. Accordingly, it provides a framework within which locally prepared plans can provide for homes, commercial development and supporting infrastructure in a sustainable manner. As hon. Members know, the framework must be taken into account in preparing local plans and is a material consideration in planning decisions.
The Government’s manifesto included a clear commitment to immediately update the NPPF. Within three weeks of taking office, we consulted on changes to the framework, finalising them in December 2024. Among the many changes made in the initial revision of the framework were the restoration and raising of mandatory housing targets—the Conservatives abolished them when they were in government, which contributed to the low number of net additional completions in our first year in office— a new standard method for assessing housing need, which is aligned to our 1.5 million new homes target; greater support for social and affordable housing provision; a strengthening of policy relating to brownfield land development; a modernised strategic approach to green-belt land designation and release; and support for key economic sectors and clean energy infrastructure.
As hon. Members know, in December 2025, we published a fuller and more definitive overhaul of the NPPF for consultation. The proposed new framework represented the culmination of a sustained effort over the first 17 months of this Parliament to revamp our planning system so that it meets housing need in full and unleashes economic growth. It represents the most significant reform to national planning policy since the original NPPF was introduced more than a decade ago.
The new NPPF that we consulted on is wholly restructured. It maintains and builds on the initial revisions that we made in December 2024. It includes a range of new measures to support key economic sectors. As hon. Members have noted, it incorporates new, clear, rules-based national policies for plan and decision making. The proposals will make the NPPF easier to navigate for communities, local authorities and developers alike.
The new decision-making policies in the framework published in 2025 are designed to make development management more certain, consistent and streamlined; to standardise policies that apply across the whole of England, particularly where we have national standards in place and do not need that degree of local variation any longer; and to reduce duplication and avoid unjustified local deviation from national policy in local plans as they are being prepared. To ensure that those changes made an immediate difference, the Government proposed that the new national decision-making policies effectively override conflicting policies in local plans from day one.
As part of that overall change to the framework, we also proposed new polices to boost housing supply and unlock economic growth in the years ahead. They include, as has been noted, a permanent presumption in favour of suitably located development; the establishment of in-principle support for suitable proposals that develop land around rail stations within existing settlements, and around well-connected train stations outside settlements, including on green-belt land; and policies designed to drive urban and suburban densification to secure a diverse mix of homes, including stronger support for rural, social and affordable housing and setting clear expectations for accessible housing to meet the needs of older and disabled people. Our proposals also include policies that embed a vision-led approach to transport, further embedding the changes that we made in December 2024; policies that better address climate change mitigation and adaptation; and policies designed to ensure that we are better conserving and enhancing the natural environment, including changes to reflect local nature recovery strategies, to recognise landscape character and conserve and enhance existing natural features, to incorporate swift bricks, and to provide guidance on sites of local importance for nature.
Andrew George
The Minister says that the purpose of the policy is, among other things, to drive the desperate need for affordable homes. Does he accept that, in rural areas, he is also driving affordable homes off rural exception sites and making them unaffordable? The setting of targets means that local plans are no longer viable and appropriate, and therefore developers can come in and simply insist that their developments should be permitted because they are delivering the housing numbers.
Matthew Pennycook
We have had this debate many times. I will come on to housing targets and the fact that if there is an up-to-date local plan in place, the housing targets do not need to be immediately revised. On the specific point about rural affordable housing, the framework makes it easier for rural exception sites to come forward through clearer national policy. It makes it far easier for rural authorities to require affordable housing on smaller sites, including removing the need for legislative designation.
We have received over 20,000 responses to the consultation. We have made very good progress in analysing the responses and making final policy decisions, but unfortunately, as a result of the announcement made by the Prime Minister on 22 June that he was resigning as Prime Minister and leader of the Labour Party and the associated constraints on Government business in the period ahead of the summer recess, including the prohibition on initiating new policy commitments, it has not been possible to respond to the consultation and publish the final framework before the summer recess. We will seek to do so in due course.
The issue of flooding, which was raised by the hon. Member for Wells and Mendip Hills, is of particular concern in her constituency, as she made clear. The NPPF outlines a sequential approach to flood risk management, requiring inappropriate development to be directed away from areas at highest risk and providing strong safeguards where development is necessary in those areas. In plan making, a sequential approach should be employed. That involves applying the sequential test and, if needed, the exception test. In decision making, where necessary, planning authorities also apply the sequential test and, if needed, the exception test to ensure that flood risk is minimised and appropriately addressed.
Tessa Munt
I wonder how the High Court came to its decision over the site in Yatton. What the Minister says sounds good to me, but it can be swept away because the NPPF is what the judge decreed was the way to go and, because there is a need for homes, the sequential test can be completely ignored.
Matthew Pennycook
That is not quite my reading of the Yatton judgment. The judge confirmed that even if a site fails the formal sequential test for flood risk, elements of the exception test remain valid material considerations that can outweigh flood risk under the tilted balance in paragraph 11(d). The High Court made a judgment in that case on the application of the policy, but it applies, as I have set out—[Interruption.] I will give way briefly, but I do want to cover the other issues raised in the debate.
Tessa Munt
Will the Minister meet me and those in my constituency who are particularly concerned about this to discuss it?
Matthew Pennycook
If I remain in post after the summer recess, I will be more than happy to meet the hon. Lady.
Where the sequential and exception tests have been applied as necessary and are not met, the framework is clear that development should not be allowed. I want to push back gently on the assertions made by the hon. Lady and the Liberal Democrat spokesman, the hon. Member for Taunton and Wellington, that we have weakened the sequential test. We have not weakened the sequential test in any way. We have clarified through changes to the PPG the triggers for the sequential test as well as its application, but we have not weakened it. If it is found necessary to build homes in areas of flood risk, the statutory guidance accompanying the building regulations promotes flood-resilient building work in flood-prone areas through approved document C, and the framework makes it clear that developments of all sizes should use sustainable drainage techniques where the development could have drainage impacts.
The draft NPPF that we have consulted on includes a dedicated chapter on planning for flood risk and coastal change. This seeks to clarify how existing policies should operate and aligns the NPPF with recent updates to planning guidance. It also included policies incorporating a new requirement that sustainable drainage systems should be designed in accordance with the national standards for sustainable drainage systems to provide a consistent basis for improving their design.
On the presumption in favour of sustainable development, we are trying to drive up the coverage of up-to-date local plans. Several hon. Members have spoken today who represent areas that do not have up-to-date local plans and five-year housing land supplies. We are making great progress in driving up plan coverage. Over 60% more local plans are at examination now than at this time last year, but it will take time to boost coverage. It is important, where policies are not up to date or where there is an insufficient supply of land, that there is a fallback to encourage planning permission to be granted, and that is what the presumption provides for.
However, the NPPF we published in December 2024 not only improved the operation of the presumption by clarifying the circumstances in which it applies, but introduced new safeguards to make it clear that its application cannot justify poor-quality development. Under the revised draft presumption published for consultation last year, the default support in principle is turned off in certain situations, including where the development would conflict with sites allocated for specific uses or would use parks and open space or land identified for flood risk management. It would also be disapplied where development does not achieve acceptable standards in relation to harm to nature, heritage assets, flood risk, design and being an effective use of land.
I have only a short time available to me and a wide range of other issues were raised. I will touch on each briefly. On our housing target and the standard method we have introduced, in our view the new method better responds to affordability pressures by using a higher affordability adjustment in its calculation. That recognises the importance of housing affordability in assessing housing need and helps direct more homes to where they are most needed and least affordable. It also provides greater certainty to the sector through more stable and predictable housing numbers, compared with the previous approach that relied on out-of-date demographic predictions and unevidenced and arbitrary judgments.
On brownfield, grey-belt and green-belt land, the hon. Member for Orpington knows full well that we strengthened the policy in the December 2024 NPPF on brownfield land. We have gone further in the draft framework that is out for consultation. It is not the case that there is enough brownfield land, particularly not viable land in the right locations on brownfield land registers across the country. In certain exceptional circumstances, local authorities need to release green-belt land. We ask them when they do so to explore all options in maximising brownfield land, working with neighbouring authorities and where necessary reviewing their green belt.
The definition of grey belt is set out in the glossary of the NPPF. There is no confusion about what it means. Where grey belt is being brought forward, it cannot fundamentally undermine the policies of the green belt across the wider plan area; we included that safeguard in the framework.
On train stations, the right hon. Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds) was right that we want more development to come forward in sustainable locations around train stations. We obviously took a different approach to all stations, as opposed to well-connected stations, where we are looking for higher minimum densities to come forward. I must be clear that the proposals do not grant automatic permission on suitable sites or remove appropriate local oversight of the development control process. They add weight to what needs to be considered as part of an overall planning judgment, as is the case with all material considerations.
I will not dwell on rural or urban housing targets. I have said before and say again that across city regions the new standard method increases targets by 20% and, through that, housing growth is directed to a wider range of urban areas and smaller cities as well as our larger city areas.
I commend the hon. Member for Wells and Mendip Hills and the Backbench Business Committee for giving the House an opportunity to debate these important matters. Over the past two years, the Government have sought to revamp the planning system to ensure that it will facilitate the delivery of high and sustainable rates of house building and high-quality infrastructure in the years ahead. To the point on infrastructure, the new NPPF strengthens expectations in that area as well.
More needs to be done to transform the failing housing system we inherited, but the revised NPPF we published in December 2024 and the wholly restructured framework we will publish in due course are integral to our plans to improve housing availability, affordability and quality in this Parliament. I thank all hon. Members for their considered contributions today and wish them all, and you, Sir Desmond, an enjoyable and productive summer recess.
Tessa Munt
I am grateful to you, Sir Desmond, and to the Minister for everything he has said. I very much hope that he stays in his place because we would like to carry on the conversation; I want him to stay exactly where he is. I know that the Government are not in favour of leaving notes, but if in a ghastly moment the Minister decides that something is not right and moves on, will he leave a long note for his successor?
I do not particularly wish to argue in the last moments of the debate, but as I understand it the national planning policy guidance permits surface water flooding sequential tests to be disapplied. I need to continue that conversation with the Minister, if I may. I point out that our local plans are up to date until such time as the housing numbers change, and then of course the local plans will not be in date any longer. In Somerset alone—I am not talking about North Somerset—18,000 new homes have passed planning but have not been built, which all relates to phosphate stuff. Those homes do not seem to be taken into account at all, given that we have another 75,000 on top of those, which seems inappropriate. I note the Minister’s comments about station parking; I really hope that we do not build on station car parks, as that would be mad. There are a number of other points that I would have liked to make—
Sir Desmond Swayne (in the Chair)
Order.
Motion lapsed (Standing Order No. 10(6)).
Changing Places Toilets: Capital Funding
(3 weeks, 6 days 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
Daniel Francis (Bexleyheath and Crayford) (Lab) [R]
I beg to move,
That this House has considered capital funding for Changing Places toilets.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Alec. I am grateful to the Backbench Business Committee for granting this debate. At the outset, I declare an interest as the chair of the all-party parliamentary groups for access to disability equipment and for wheelchair users, and I am also the parent of a child with quadriplegic cerebral palsy who relies on Changing Places toilets.
Changing Places toilets are designed for people with profound and multiple disabilities and their carers, who need space and equipment—such as ceiling track hoists and height-adjustable, adult-sized changing beds—that a standard accessible toilet would not provide. Almost 250,000 people in the United Kingdom need personal assistance to use the toilet or change incontinence pads, including people with profound and multiple learning disabilities, spinal injuries and a number of other complex needs.
Currently, the number of active and registered Changing Places toilets stands at 2,665, which has greatly increased from the 140 available back in 2007. Last year, there were 99 registrations of new Changing Places toilets across the UK, including in Madame Tussauds here in London, in five Lloyds Banking Group locations and at three National Trust locations.
Back in 2005, the Changing Places consortium was established as a group of individuals and organisations that support the rights of people with disabilities. At the heart of the consortium’s members is PAMIS, a voluntary organisation based in Dundee that supports parents of children and adults with profound and multiple learning disabilities, alongside the Centre for Accessible Environments.
I pay tribute to the late Loretta Lamb, the founder and chief executive officer of PAMIS, along with the team of staff and volunteers behind Changing Places toilets, led by Jenny, Karen and Fiona. I also want to highlight Changing Places Awareness Day, which is this coming Sunday 19 July. Campaigners have worked tirelessly to raise awareness and push for greater inclusion for disabled people, their families and carers.
Changing Places toilets have been vital for my family. I am the father of twins, and one of our daughters has quadriplegic cerebral palsy. She is a wheelchair user and unable to tell us when she needs the toilet; she is still in nappies at almost 13 years of age. Given her height and weight, a changing bed is essential to changing her with dignity. Prior to the roll-out of Changing Places toilets in recent years, I had the indignity of changing my child on a bench, behind a bush or on the floor of our wheelchair-accessible van; unfortunately, it occasionally still happens today. Changing Places toilets are vital to giving her some dignity.
The roll-out of Changing Places toilets and the Changing Places map facility allows families like ours to plan their days out, trips and travel arrangements, knowing where there will be a toilet. As a result of additional funding from the Department for Transport, a new journey planner feature has been launched as part of the Changing Places toilet map, which allows increased functionality for planning, saving and downloading travel routes with Changing Places toilets. Both the map and the journey planner have been life-changing for many families, allowing them access to places and days out and enabling them to plan routes around availability at service stations, which has greatly increased in the last 10 years, train stations, seaside destinations or museums. They allow both my children to have the same dignity and respect as other children out there.
When I held an Adjournment debate on this subject last July, I reported that the number of registered facilities at that point was 2,609. It is positive that that number continues to grow, but that growth is slowing. Much as I support my party and my Government, that is in many respects because of the end of the previous scheme in March 2025. That is why I continue to call for a form of funding, through the reintroduction of a capital grant, to be brought forward to allow organisations, companies and charities to install new Changing Places toilets and to bring existing Changing Places toilets up to current standard. In this building, our Changing Places toilet is really not up to a modern standard. I used it a few weeks ago with my daughter—it is a back-breaker.
An expansion of capital funding for Changing Places toilets would lead to people with profound disabilities accessing more opportunities and more families and individuals contributing to our hospitality businesses, theme parks, leisure facilities and sports grounds—the list goes on.
There was, of course, a previous fund. In 2019, the then Conservative Government ran a consultation on the proposal to increase the provision of Changing Places toilets. Following that consultation, the Government announced that the provision of Changing Places toilets in new public buildings above a certain size would be compulsory, and that was brought into force on 1 January 2021. I am very grateful that the then local government Minister, the right hon. Member for Richmond and Northallerton (Rishi Sunak), has joined us this afternoon. I absolutely accept that he was fundamental in getting the law changed and ensuring that the consultation was held.
In July 2021, the then Government launched a £30.5 million fund to expand the provision of Changing Places toilets. From that fund, almost 500 new facilities were installed. I know from experience that there has been a profound change in the last 10 years that has made travelling up and down the country much easier. Near where we are standing today, people can access Changing Places toilets at the National Portrait Gallery, the National Gallery, Ikea in Oxford Street or Waterloo Station, which did not have them 10 years ago.
The fund closed in March 2025. Although I acknowledge that changes to building regulations ensure that facilities continue to be installed in new buildings, I retain concerns that older buildings would greatly benefit from having a Changing Places toilet installed. For example, in April this year, one of those older buildings—St Paul’s cathedral—opened a Changing Places facility, giving visitors who require specialist toilets the ability to access them. I understand that there is now such a facility at Blackburn cathedral and that there will shortly be one at Lambeth Palace.
I go back to what I said about motorways. In November 2018, the DFT announced that it was partnering with Muscular Dystrophy UK to expand the provision of Changing Places toilets at service stations. We now have 54 Changing Places toilets at service stations across the UK. That has been a huge step forward in allowing families like mine more freedom and options when planning their journeys up and down the country.
I am calling for an official Changing Places app. Currently, people can access a map on the main Changing Places Consortium website, but an official Changing Places app with identification mapping would allow users to quickly identify where toilets are while on journeys. I have said this many times during the passage of the Railways Bill and many times in the Chamber: I believe that Great British Railways should bring forward a national transport accessibility app that shows the availability of level access, station accessibility, live travel lift information, as the TfL Go app has, and locations of Changing Places toilets.
A new form of capital funding would give businesses and local authorities the opportunity and encouragement to bring forward more Changing Places facilities. A number of hon. Friends have identified locations where they believe Changing Places toilets could be installed. For instance, my hon. Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (James Naish), who sadly cannot be with us this afternoon, has spoken to me at length about support for a national fund. In his local authority, Rushcliffe borough council, he has been looking for two years to install a Changing Places toilet facility in West Bridgford, the town centre, and is struggling to locate the funding to do so. I ask the Minister to outline what consideration the Department has given to the merits of bringing forward a new capital fund.
I turn now to the importance of maintaining Changing Places toilets. I mentioned last year that, in Bexleyheath town centre, we had to close a Changing Places toilet because of the vandalism it was receiving, with people living in it and dealing drugs in it. I will continue to call for a greater system beyond the current radar key system. Radar keys are openly available in shops and on the internet and there are too many occasions when Changing Places toilets are vandalised as a result of misuse.
I thank the Chamber engagement team for their hard work in organising a survey for the public to share their experiences of using Changing Places toilets and the impact on people’s lives. I thank the more than 100,000 people who have taken the time to answer the survey over the last week. I wanted to read a few of the responses. One respondent said:
“My daughter is severely disabled. Our first experience of Changing Places toilets was at Center Parcs…I was amazed and overwhelmed with emotions when I saw how I could finally change my daughter comfortably and how excited she was when she realised this was made for people like her.”
Another said:
“My son’s opportunities to go to new places or anywhere over a certain distance is dependent on the availability of Changing Places…We work hard all week and want the same opportunities other families have to go out as a family and do interesting things. Without Changing Places we’re trapped at home.”
Other respondents’ experiences highlighted that there is still a lack of available and well-maintained facilities across the country. One said:
“Without access to an appropriate facility, I am left with impossible choices: ending outings early, avoiding certain venues altogether, or changing my daughter on the floor of an accessible toilet, which is neither hygienic, safe nor dignified.”
I have read through the responses to the survey, and there was a lot of appreciation for Changing Places toilets and the benefits they bring to the lives of severely disabled people and their families. There are also, however, a number of horror stories of people’s experiences where facilities were not available or where they have not been maintained to a suitable standard. I have shared one from my constituency; I could tell of others that have been vandalised or locked. On one occasion, in Brighton city centre, a toilet was locked after 4 pm in the winter. On another occasion, a seaside town locked it from October to March—but people still visit then.
A new round of funding would ensure that Changing Places toilets are maintained and held to a good standard, that training is provided, and that new facilities are opened across the country. Every family deserves to be able to go on days out and partake in everyday activities.
I want to talk about the Scottish Government. They have a fund managed by Inspiring Scotland in partnership with PAMIS that is part of a £10 million investment in the last and current financial years into planning and installing 150 additional facilities across Scotland. I understand that the fund continues to be open for applications, which can be found on the Inspiring Scotland website. I look forward to seeing more facilities opening, benefiting the people and economy of Scotland.
I want briefly to talk about hospitals, although I know that that is not in the Minister’s remit. Changing Places toilets are important for people when they are out and about, but also for people in hospital. My daughter is served by four different London hospitals. In a hospital setting, one would expect to have people with a profound disability who need to use such facilities, but there is variable information about which hospitals do and do not provide them and where they are located within those hospitals.
I submitted a written question to inquire about the number of Changing Places hospitals. Unfortunately, no assessment has been made and the Department of Health does not hold that information, so it appears that more work needs to be done on that. There is national guidance provided to the NHS on designated sanitary spaces in healthcare settings and designed facilities to meet the needs of disabled people—but without clear provision of toilets, needs are not met for people accessing hospital appointments. In 2019, it was estimated that the average cost of installing a Changing Places toilet in a hospital was between £25,000 and £35,000. I ask that the Minister continue conversations across Government so that we can look at installation in hospitals.
I would like to ask the Minister to respond to five points. Will the Government look at introducing a new capital fund for older and smaller venues? Regulations that require a new stadium or shopping centre over a certain size to have a Changing Places toilet have been brought in. I am looking long and hard at finding a facility for a Changing Places toilet in Crayford, the secondary town in my constituency. The second largest Sainsbury’s in the country is in Crayford, so I am trying to work with Sainsbury’s to provide one there. In many town centres, hon. Members may be able to find a venue, but they cannot always find the funding.
Will the Minister work with the Changing Places consortium to upgrade facilities of the older standard, such as the one in the Members’ Lobby, to the current one? Will she commit to working with other Government Departments not only for hospitals, but for railway stations? The nationalisation of the railways presents us with a real opportunity to look at our larger railway stations. As we now have a Changing Places toilet at London Waterloo, I hope we will get one at London Charing Cross very soon. There are opportunities there for people’s travel options.
How are we monitoring larger planning applications under the regulations passed by the previous Government to ensure that the facilities are correctly installed and maintained? Will the Government continue to work with the Changing Places consortium on more modern software, so that we can have an app and make it easier for people to plan their journeys and identify where Changing Places toilets are located? I look forward to hearing colleagues’ contributions and the Minister’s comments on those points.
Sir Alec Shelbrooke (in the Chair)
Colleagues may be aware that our next speaker is recovering from an operation. I am content for the right hon. Member to deliver his speech from a sedentary position, if he would like to do so.
Rishi Sunak (Richmond and Northallerton) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Alec. I will do my best to keep standing—if nothing else, it will make me speak for a lot less time than I might otherwise, which will be a relief to everyone. I both congratulate the hon. Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford (Daniel Francis) and thank him for securing this important debate. He speaks from personal experience, and he spoke very movingly and powerfully about the situation we are discussing today. I am grateful to him for giving us the opportunity to discuss this important topic.
Politics is often about addressing the great matters of state. We often talk about war and peace in this House. However, politics is also about making people’s everyday lives that little bit easier. One of the things all MPs discover is that we learn a lot from our constituents—certainly if those constituents are from Yorkshire, as the Chairman will appreciate. I was profoundly moved after a meeting I had with a group of my constituents in 2017. I had called in at the Dales School in Morton-on-Swale near Northallerton, and a group of parents of the most severely disabled children at the school wanted to talk to me. They told me about the difficulties they faced as families when they went out. and explained how a lack of suitable toilets and changing facilities meant that visiting the majority of leisure attractions and destinations across the country on a day out, which most families would take for granted, was nigh-on impossible for them.
I vividly remember one mum putting in front of me a magazine with all the events and attractions happening across the region in the summer holidays. She had gone through them and crossed out 99% because they did not have the facilities that her child required. As a parent myself, I looked at that list, saw all the places she had crossed out and realised that those were the very places I had taken my two young daughters to, to help them fall in love with Yorkshire after we first moved there. I reflected on the huge unfairness of that situation and how it compounded the difficulties that that family and many others faced—difficulties that most of us will never encounter—and how most of those places were just off limits for them. As I sat there, I felt that the situation was just not right.
Another parent, Andrew, spoke—similarly to the hon. Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford—of the physical difficulty and the indignity of having on occasion to change his 10-year-old daughter Aniela on rough ground behind a shed or on the dirty floor of a public bathroom, because those were the only places available to them in the circumstances. I admit that, going into my meeting with those parents, I had complacently assumed that we had largely resolved the issue of access to and provision of disabled toilets in this country. I had not realised, until I met and listened to them, that for young children or adults who require the help of a carer to use a toilet, a disabled toilet is not sufficient. They need a Changing Places facility with a bench, a hoist and a privacy screen.
After that meeting, I vowed to those parents that I would do whatever I could to raise and highlight the issue, which I began to do as a Back-Bench MP in Parliament. Fortuitously, a year later, I was lucky to be appointed Minister for Local Government. In that role, I was inspired by my predecessor as Member of Parliament for Richmond (Yorks), William Hague. As Minister for disabled people, which was one of his first ministerial jobs, he was instrumental in bringing into law, under John Major’s Government, the Disability Discrimination Act 1995. That legislation enshrined in law the principle that institutions must make reasonable adjustments to ensure equality of opportunity for disabled people.
Twenty years after the introduction of the 1995 Act, I felt that we needed to renew that spirit to address the issue of Changing Places. As a junior Minister, I therefore set about changing building regulations to make it mandatory to install Changing Places facilities in new large public buildings such as shopping centres, cinemas and theme parks.
At about that time, I happened to meet Zack Kerr, a young campaigner with cerebral palsy—I am sure the hon. Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford knows him well. Zack told me then:
“Life can be difficult enough in many ways, but when there are no accessible toilet facilities where I can be hoisted safely from my wheelchair and changed in privacy and with dignity, I face the choice between staying at home or restricting my social life because of my needs...that’s just not fair.”
Zack rightly also pointed out the need for Changing Place facilities at motorway service stations, so that families could travel freely across the country. I am glad that, when the Conservatives were in Government, we made £4 million available not just to install Changing Places at motorway service stations, but to make a better start on installing them in NHS hospitals.
In 2020—fortuitously or not, depending on your point of view—I then became Chancellor of the Exchequer. In my first Budget, I launched the £30 million Changing Places fund, which match funded the cost of installing the toilets in existing buildings, where the need is, as we have heard, significant. I am delighted that over the subsequent years, the fund has made possible almost 500 different Changing Places facilities across the nation, including in Leyburn and at the Dales Countryside Museum in Hawes in my constituency.
As we have heard, more than 2,500 Changing Places are now installed across the country. We should take a moment to reflect that that is three times as many as there were a decade or so ago, when I first became aware of the issue. Now landmark attractions such as Alton Towers, Madame Tussauds and the Tower of London, as well as most Premier League stadiums and cinemas and shopping centres right across the country, all have that vital facility in place. Of course, the job is not done. We need more Changing Places facilities; almost a quarter of a million people rely on them.
We have made real progress, and it is worth taking a moment to thank the people who deserve praise for that. The consortium, as we have heard, is now run by PAMIS and the Centre for Accessible Environments, but previously, when I was in post, it was run by Mencap and Muscular Dystrophy UK, supported by many others. They deserve enormous credit for their co-ordination and campaigning on this issue. So do the tireless campaigners up and down the country—families with severely disabled children and other family members, like dad Andrew Newton and his daughter Aniela, who came to see me all those years ago.
Certainly for my part, as I reflect on my political career, it will remain one of my proudest achievements to have played a small part in supporting all their efforts. Every time a parent gets in touch to say they have been able to enjoy a family day out that most of us take for granted, I feel a real sense of pride. We all know there is much wrong with our politics, but this issue shows the value of our constituency system: communities are able to raise issues directly with their elected representatives and see them turned into action. It also shows the benefit of working across party lines over years to make changes, and to make people’s lives that bit easier.
I associate myself with the powerful speech by the hon. Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford. I know the Minister will have listened hard to what he said about the need for capital funding for existing buildings, and I am sure she will do what she can to make colleagues in Government aware of that issue, and to make representations to them. I know she will do that because all of us here are deeply committed to ensuring that these families can enjoy more opportunities and the better quality of life that they deserve, and most importantly, have the chance to live with dignity.
Juliet Campbell (Broxtowe) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Alec. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford (Daniel Francis) for securing the debate and for all his work in championing the rights of disabled people. He is tireless in what he does. I also put on record that Changing Places toilets were first introduced in Nottingham, where my constituency of Broxtowe is. I am proud that Nottinghamshire carries that legacy of innovation.
In previous roles, I have been a champion for disabled people, and many people have spoken to me about the need for Changing Places toilets. Many people with profound, multiple and severe disabilities and neurological conditions have complex needs, and a standard accessible toilet is insufficient. Many require a Changing Places facility equipped with a hoist, an adult-sized changing bench and adequate space for carers to provide sufficient support safely and with dignity.
Without those facilities, everyday activities that many of us take for granted become impossible—a family day out, a trip to the high street, visiting a museum, going shopping or meeting friends. Many of us take those things for granted, but those ordinary experiences are denied to too many people because they do not feel confident that their needs will be met once they leave home.
According to the Office for National Statistics, there are 10,000 disabled people in my constituency of Broxtowe who require a Changing Places facility, but there are only two such facilities there, meaning that people in Eastwood, Awsworth, Stapleford and Beeston do not have access to suitable provision. Only one of those facilities is modern enough and regularly open.
Disability rights charities and organisations across the country talk about disabled people and their carers restricting their journeys or avoiding going out altogether because they cannot find suitable toilet facilities or be certain that facilities will be open and accessible. Isolation, loneliness and poor mental health are often attributed to low social interaction, which can lead to anxiety and depression—that is what such facilities being missing can mean for disabled people. Parents of disabled children frequently report to me avoiding going out on outings altogether, not because they want their children to be excluded but because they cannot be certain that they will find a changing facility.
As a result, people become isolated from their communities and excluded from socialising. No child should be excluded from public spaces because there is nowhere suitable for them to change when necessary; no parent should have to choose between taking their child out and preserving their dignity; and no adult should be prevented from participating in social activities because the basic infrastructure that they require is absent.
The last Government rightly addressed some of this by making changes to building regulations that will increase Changing Places provision in new, large non-dwelling buildings. That is a welcome step and will improve access over the long term. However, disabled people cannot wait for a future development to solve today’s problems. Capital funding is needed now. The reality is that there are still large gaps in provision across the country, particularly in our transport corridors, town centres, tourist destinations and rural communities.
I urge the Government to look at how Changing Places provision can be embedded with current and future urban planning and within the Government’s high street strategy, with capital funding attributed to it. Accessible toilet facilities should form part of any strategy to create genuinely accessible high streets, ensuring that disabled people can confidently visit their towns, cities and public attractions without fear of being left without appropriate facilities. Capital investment in Changing Places toilets is not simply an investment in buildings or facilities themselves; it is an investment in an inclusive society where disabled people can enjoy the same opportunities, freedoms and quality of life as anyone else.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
It is always a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Alec. I thank the hon. Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford (Daniel Francis) for introducing a topic that, as he said and as we all know, touches the very core of human dignity, equality and basic compassion. It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Broxtowe (Juliet Campbell) as well; I thank her for her contribution.
It was also a pleasure to hear the story told by the right hon. Member for Richmond and Northallerton (Rishi Sunak) of how he was approached by his constituents and how, as he rose up the ministerial ladder, he used his position to ensure that the very things that his constituents had asked for were delivered. I wish to put on record my thanks to him for using his position for his constituents and all our people, because ultimately, we all benefit from that £50 million to which he referred.
It is also a pleasure to see the Minister in her place. I am not sure what is going on, but whenever she turns up, I seem to turn up as well. Westminster Hall has been well used this week on numerous occasions by both of us, and by many others as well. However, we seem to be featuring in similar debates.
When it comes to the welfare of vulnerable people, I will knock on any door and speak in any Chamber to ensure that they are not forgotten. That is why today is so important. I secured a debate just a few weeks ago about stoma care facilities and public toilets, but today we are talking about something slightly different: Changing Places toilets. We are not talking about standard disabled toilets; we are talking about life-changing essential facilities that provide an adult-sized, height-adjustable changing bench, a tracking hoist system, a centrally placed toilet and room for two carers—the physical room for them to be able to help.
Without those facilities, thousands of our fellow citizens cannot leave their homes for more than a couple of hours without facing the horrific, unsanitary and utterly degrading reality of being changed on a dirty public toilet floor. I would not like that, which is why I am here to speak up. I thank the hon. Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford for his moving contribution and his personal story. We all agree that personal stories carry weight. Today, he shared his with us all, and I thank him for doing so.
The Government previously announced magnificent capital funding pots for Changing Places toilets across England. But as the Member for Strangford, I will tell the story from Northern Ireland—it is not a great story but a disappointing one; maybe not for my constituency but certainly across Northern Ireland—to ensure that capital funding reaches the places that are falling desperately behind.
An estimated 7,000 people across our province rely entirely on Changing Places facilities to live a normal life, yet the figures show that Northern Ireland has historically been one of the worst-performing regions in the entire United Kingdom for provision, with a shocking lack of options outside major city hubs. Campaign groups have highlighted that four out of five hospitals in Northern Ireland—it almost makes me cringe to say this—still have no registered Changing Places facilities, leaving vulnerable patients, staff and visitors completely stranded in the very places that are meant to care for them, which leaves me incredulous. I followed up with the Northern Ireland Minister in relation to the stoma debate, and I will do the same now to reinforce the need for change.
I am very fortunate that my constituency of Strangford and the borough of Ards and North Down have been able to record the data: out of nearly 40 publicly available toilets across the borough, only about a dozen are standard accessible toilets. When looking for true, fully compliant and registered Changing Places toilets, the list shrinks even further. I commend—and I mean this, because I know that it has been doing many things—Ards and North Down borough council. I had the distinct honour of serving on it for some 26 years, and it has shown real leadership: it was the first council in Northern Ireland to ensure that all council accessible toilets were stoma-friendly. That is the good news story I shared in the stoma debate in this place about four weeks ago.
The council has successfully put standard Changing Places facilities into key hubs like the Bangor Aurora Aquatic and Leisure Complex, the Comber Leisure Centre and the magnificent Ards Blair Mayne Wellbeing and Leisure Complex. My council has moved mountains to make sure that those things happened, but local councils cannot carry the weight alone on strained ratepayers’ money.
If a family want to enjoy the beautiful shores of the Ards peninsula where I live, or visit Ballyhalbert, Portavogie or Cloughey, the facilities simply do not exist. Those places are nearly off-limits for those who, as the hon. Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford said, want to take their family out, even if it is only two hours down the road and back again. Families are forced to cut their days short and rush back to Newtownards or Bangor just so a loved one can use a bathroom in a dignified manner—we are talking about dignity here—which is a crying shame in this day and age.
While Northern Ireland has introduced legislative changes to building regulations in recent years to mandate these toilets in any new major public buildings such as shopping centres—the hon. Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford referred to that—the Department of Health and local authorities back home are facing severe financial constraints and have explicitly stated that they lack the central capital budget to retrofit existing hospitals, transport hubs and some town centres.
I am ever-mindful of the Minister’s responsibilities and that she always tries to give helpful answers to our questions, but will she take up this cause with the Chancellor and the Northern Ireland Executive to ensure that regional capital funding formulas allow for dedicated, ringfenced resources to expand their Changing Places network? The right hon. Member for Richmond and Northallerton can tell me whether I am right or wrong, but I presume that the £50 million earmarked for the project had Barnett consequentials.
Jim Shannon
So we got some, but we need that to be ringfenced. Minister, if moneys are coming through Barnett consequentials, let us ensure that they are used for those purposes. We need central capital funding that can be accessed by local councils like Ards and North Down borough council to retrofit our coastal towns, tourist hotspots and community centres; I believe that many are ready.
A civilised society is always judged by how it treats the most vulnerable. This is not a political issue—we all know that—it is about personal dignity, equality and what is right. It is about independence, inclusion and the basic right to go out for a cup of tea or a walk by the sea without losing your dignity. I urge the Minister to work hand in hand with the devolved Administration to ensure that capital funding flows to where it is needed the most, so that no child or adult in Northern Ireland is ever forced to use a public toilet floor again.
Wera Hobhouse (Bath) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Sir Alec. I congratulate the hon. Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford (Daniel Francis) on securing this very important debate, and I thank him for sharing his personal story. Lived experience is always most moving and powerful, but it is often difficult to share, because so many emotions come with it. No parent, and indeed no child, should be faced with the indignity of changing a loved one on the floor of a toilet or behind a shed. I feel very much for him and his experience. This problem is not something that has been resolved everywhere. It continues, which is why we are debating it.
The issue before us is simple: if a person cannot safely use the toilet when they are away from home, they do not have equal access to public life. For most people, planning a day out means deciding where to go and how to get there. For many disabled people and their families, it means checking whether the journey is accessible, whether the venue can accommodate them and, crucially, whether there will be a toilet they can use. Too often, the answer to the last question is no. That means cutting a day out short, turning down an invitation, avoiding a long journey or simply staying at home. No one should be excluded from everyday life because the facilities they need have not been adequately provided.
As we have heard, Changing Places toilets are not the same as standard accessible toilets. They include an adult-sized changing bench, a ceiling track hoist and enough space for carers to provide support safely. Without those facilities, some disabled people are left with completely unacceptable choices. They may have to be changed on a toilet floor. Their families or carers may have to attempt unsafe lifting. Some people restrict what they eat or drink before going out, because they are worried that there will be nowhere suitable for them to use. That is undignified, unsafe and entirely avoidable.
As legislators, we often talk in this place about inclusion, independence and equal access, but those principles must mean something in practice—they must not be just talk. A building is not truly accessible if a disabled person can enter it but cannot safely use the toilet while they are there. There has been progress. There are now 2,665 registered Changing Places toilets across the United Kingdom, compared with around 140 in 2007—that is good. The previous Government’s £30 million Changing Places toilets fund supported the installation of nearly 500 new facilities across England, but the fund is no longer active. That funding made a genuine difference and shows what can be achieved when the Government provide the right support. The fund was closed in March 2025, but the job is not finished. There are still too many town centres, transport hubs, parks, hospitals, tourist attractions and community venues without a Changing Places toilet.
Provision is also very uneven. There might be a Changing Places toilet within a local authority area, but that does not mean it is in the right place, open at the right time or easily accessible to the people who need it. The changes to building regulations are welcome, but they are not enough on their own. They mainly help when new buildings are constructed or when major developments take place; they do little to address the large number of existing public buildings and venues that disabled people use every day. We cannot wait decades for those gaps to be filled gradually during redevelopment.
Cost is often the main barrier. Installing a Changing Places toilet can cost tens of thousands of pounds, which may be a relatively small part of the overall budget for a major development, but it can be impossible for a charity, community venue, small visitor attraction or local council to afford without additional support. Local authorities are already under severe financial pressure, as we all know, due to the growing cost of social care, temporary accommodation and special educational needs provision. Councils may want to improve accessibility, but without dedicated capital funding, projects are delayed or even abandoned.
That is why the Liberal Democrats are calling on the Government to review the long-term capital funding available for Changing Places toilets. We need a proper assessment of where the gaps are, and the Government should work with disabled people, families, carers, local authorities and the Changing Places consortium to identify the areas and venues where provision is most urgently needed. That assessment should lead to a properly funded, long-term programme.
Local authorities and community organisations should not have to rely on occasional short-term pots of money, and they should not have to compete against one another for limited funding. Changing Places toilets should also be included from the beginning in major transport projects, town centre regeneration schemes and investment in public buildings. It is far easier and less expensive to design these facilities into a project than it is to add them afterwards. Funding and guidance must take account of maintenance, signage, staffing and opening hours.
I would therefore like to ask the Minister three questions. First, does she accept that changes to building regulations alone will not deliver the number of Changing Places toilets that disabled people and their families need? Secondly, will the Government carry out a national assessment of gaps in provision, working directly with disabled people and the organisations that represent them? Thirdly, will the Government establish a successor to the previous capital fund, with long-term and predictable funding for local authorities and community organisations?
Changing Places toilets are essential infrastructure. We would not describe an accessible entrance, ramp or lift as an optional extra, so we should not treat appropriate toilet facilities differently. Everyone should be able to go shopping, travel, attend an appointment, visit a park or attraction and have a good time with their family without having to worry about whether their most basic needs can be met. The previous funding programme showed that progress is possible, and the Government must now build on that work. I hope the Minister is listening to the cross-party consensus on this issue.
Aphra Brandreth (Chester South and Eddisbury) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Alec. I start by thanking the hon. Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford (Daniel Francis) for securing this important debate, and for sharing his family’s experience. I recognise the vital work of the Changing Places consortium, established in 2005, in continuing to ensure that the issue is raised in this place, the Chamber, town halls and across Whitehall. I also pay tribute to the former Prime Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond and Northallerton (Rishi Sunak), who began so much of the work on this topic when he served as a Minister in the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government.
We have heard from Members today how vital Changing Places toilets are in our cities, towns and villages for those in need of their larger and more accessible facilities. The debate has featured powerful testimonies from constituents on how their lives are impacted every day by the inaccessibility of many public toilets, and how this affects them both physically and mentally. I would like to add one more example from my Chester South and Eddisbury constituency.
Although it has already been mentioned, it is worth reinforcing how vital Changing Places facilities are for older disabled children and adults. My constituents Radhika and Shyam told me that a standard accessible toilet simply does not meet the needs of their son, Idnaat. Without appropriate facilities, as we have heard, families can face the undignified and distressing choice of changing a loved one on a toilet floor, or having to cut short a day out. No family should ever have to make that choice.
That is why I also want to recognise the work of Chester zoo. Radhika and Shyam told me what a difference the zoo’s Changing Places toilet has made to their family. It meant that Idnaat could be changed safely and with dignity, allowing them to enjoy a day out together like any other family. That is exactly the sort of forward-thinking approach we should be encouraging. Accessible public toilets are not a luxury or convenience; they are an essential part of ensuring that everyone, regardless of age or disability, can participate in life with dignity. I am therefore delighted that Chester zoo is looking at increasing the number of Changing Places toilets on site.
Changing Places toilets provide an indispensable private space for people with profound and multiple learning disabilities, as well as people with other physical disabilities such as spinal injuries, muscular dystrophy and multiple sclerosis. They include essential equipment that can make daily life that bit easier for an estimated 250,000 people. Changing Places toilet users have found it invaluable to have this equipment, which includes height-adjustable, adult-sized changing benches; ceiling track hoists; a peninsular WC with room either side; a safe and clean environment, including tear-off paper to cover the bench; a large waste bin; a non-slip floor; and space for multiple carers. That is crucial because, for too many people, more typical public toilet spaces are not just inconvenient but not fit for purpose, rendering the space effectively unusable. As we know, many disabilities may not be visible, which can lead to an unfortunate and exasperating ignorance of the issues facing people in need of Changing Places toilets.
The toilets allow those with needs that make a regular lavatory inaccessible to find the privacy, dignity, liberty and safety required. That has long been keenly recognised on this side of the House. That is why I was proud to see the previous Conservative Government make Changing Places toilets compulsory in new public buildings. That change, made in 2020, has allowed more people to have greater access to public places by providing the essential facilities to make such everyday trips viable.
It is also why I was proud to see the previous Conservative Government launch the Changing Places toilets fund, which was worth £30.5 million. The fund enabled local authorities to increase the number of Changing Places toilets in England, meaning that there are now around 2,665 registered active Changing Places toilets across the country. That is up from just 140 in 2007.
Thanks to local campaigners and the previous Conservative Government, as we heard from my right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond and Northallerton, we as a nation have gone up from just one Changing Places toilet per 1,786 users to one per 94 users. That is a remarkable steer down the road to equality, and it is vital that the Government continue driving progress in the right direction.
The 2019 consultation showed that the vast majority of the individuals and organisations that responded believed that an increase in the number of Changing Places toilets would give individuals with multiple or complex disabilities, as well as their carers and families, greater ability to leave home and visit different places. They believed it would remove the risk of unsafe lifting by carers, offer a dignified space for users and be more suitable than simple wheelchair-accessible unisex toilets.
The £30.5 million provided to local authorities by the Conservative Government was divided into two funding rounds: an initial round of £23.5 million allocated to 191 English local authorities, followed by the remaining £7 million, which was spread to 64 local authorities. After the fund closed, the current Labour Government were petitioned on this matter in December last year. They concluded that local authorities are best placed to assess and manage toilet provision. As Members will know, local authorities have valuable local knowledge of where to provide essential services in their area, which highlights why the previous Conservative Government’s Changing Places toilets fund was allocated to local leaders to decide how and where best to spend the vital funds for these life-changing spaces.
Will the Minister set out how the Government’s current view appears to be a U-turn from their policy in opposition? During the passage of the Levelling-up and Regeneration Act 2022, the then shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Nottingham North and Kimberley (Alex Norris), proposed an amendment for a review of public conveniences that, as the Conservative Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State noted,
“would require the appointment of a commissioner to consider the level of need for conveniences”.––[Official Report, Levelling-up and Regeneration Public Bill Committee, 20 October 2022; c. 876.]
The former Government felt that such a change would risk increasing bureaucracy while decreasing the importance of local decision making. It was felt that it would be disproportionate for the Government of the day to legislate on such a fundamentally local issue, as many local authorities already operate local community toilet schemes. Is it now the Government’s policy for such a commissioner to be appointed to review public conveniences, or do they agree that the best placed authorities are local authorities?
I hope the Minister will address that and confirm what plans the Government have for any future support for Changing Places toilets now that the funding I mentioned has concluded. That is essential for those watching the Government and waiting for answers. It is essential for those who must live every day with disabilities—some of which are debilitating, incapacitating and severe—hoping to have the necessary basic facilities to change leaving the house from being something daunting into something routine.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Nesil Caliskan)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Alec. This is the second or third time we have been in the same debate this week, so Members are in competition with me. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford (Daniel Francis) for securing this important debate and for his ongoing efforts to speak up for issues that matter not only to him but to so many of our constituents across the country. He has been a committed advocate for Changing Places toilets and so many issues that others find difficult to talk about. He is the voice of many constituents around the country.
I welcome the opportunity to respond on behalf of the Government to this important debate, which comes on the back of another important debate about public toilets for people with stomas, which some Members in this debate took part in. I thank all Members, including the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Chester South and Eddisbury (Aphra Brandreth), for their contributions and their thoughtful, emotional and challenging speeches. Often these are the sorts of debates that have a real impact on policy change.
As Members have pointed out, for many people the availability of an accessible public toilet that is clean and safe can be the deciding factor in whether they feel able to visit a town centre, a high street, a local attraction, their park, or just something they want to do that weekend. Such facilities support dignity and independence for people with disabilities and accessibility needs. There is also an impact on the families that support those with a disability.
However, for some individuals with profound and multiple disabilities, or other conditions that severely limit mobility, standard accessible toilets might not provide the support they need. Such toilets might lack essential features such as adult-sized changing benches, hoists and enough space for a disabled person and one or more carers. As hon. Members have highlighted, that is exactly why Changing Places toilets are so important. They provide the space, equipment and dignity that standard provision simply cannot provide. I know that from my own experience as a Member of Parliament who has visited a lot of special educational needs provision and spoken to many parents about their own lived experience and the need for the gap to be fixed.
The Government want people to be able to live well, work, enjoy days out, shop and socialise, and we recognise that access to appropriate public facilities can be an important part of enabling that. Reasonable adjustments, as has already been mentioned, are instrumental to changing lives and allowing everybody to live fulfilled lives.
As hon. Members have acknowledged, in recognition of the importance of the issue, the Government delivered over £30 million for the Changing Places toilets programme, and I am delighted that the right hon. Member for Richmond and Northallerton (Rishi Sunak) joined the debate. The programme has supported the targeted installation of well over 400 new disabled toilet facilities in areas where they were most needed across England. Although that programme closed last year, changes were made in January 2021 to the statutory guidance accompanying building regulations.
Wera Hobhouse
The Minister just acknowledged that the fund was closed, although I am not sure whether all the money was spent. We all agree that the fund provided and delivered a very important human dignity facility, as we have all talked about. Can she please explain why a fund that provided for human dignity was cut?
Nesil Caliskan
I thank the hon. Member for her passionate advocacy. Since the fund was allocated, we have had a significant spending review through which moneys were allocated to local government. I will make the case for why decisions around spending are best made locally, but that does not mean I do not recognise the important cases that have been made. I also recognise that the moneys that had been allocated to Changing Places toilets delivered change on the ground with facilities across the country.
I also absolutely accept the important point that my hon. Friend the Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford made about the speed at which additional facilities are being provided. There has clearly been a reduction in the speed of provision across the country—I am not in the business of rejecting the evidence in front of us—but the Government’s important spending review included a record spending settlement for local government, and spending decisions should be taken locally.
The 2021 regulations were significant. I remember them well; as a council leader, I followed building regulation changes, which have an impact on local government budgets. As a result of the 2021 regulations, all building works must meet the functional requirements of the 2010 building regulations, including part M, which addresses accessibility. In addition, at the 2025 spending review the Government committed more than £5 billion in new grant funding over three years for essential local services, including public toilets.
We continue to provide 100% mandatory business rates relief for separately accessible toilets. I accept that that is a slightly different conversation, but I want to give a sense of the Government’s broader commitment to ensuring that there are accessible toilets for everybody in our communities. Taken together, those measures are intended to increase the availability of these vital facilities over time and ensure that accessibility is treated as a mainstream consideration as we plan and build our public spaces.
I hear and accept the powerful cases that hon. Members have made. I acknowledge the calls for a new capital fund pot for Changing Places but, as Members will appreciate, it is a little beyond my ability to make a spending commitment, although I am reminded that Ministers in the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government have gone on to hold offices that have the power to make such commitments. Members will take the point that I am making.
The Government believe that local authorities are best placed to understand where facilities need to be, so our approach to funding them is important. We encourage them to allocate the funding necessary to deliver public toilet provision. Decisions are best made locally.
Wera Hobhouse
I understand the money argument, but will the Minister acknowledge that local authorities are stuck when it comes to providing mandatory services? They have to provide children’s and adult social care, but public toilets are optional. That is the dilemma. Local authorities cannot make that money available, as we have discussed.
Nesil Caliskan
I thank the hon. Lady for making that point. My hon. Friend the Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford and I have spent a long time in local government, so we know all too well that statutory services are under huge pressure and that choices have to be made. I accept the argument that if funding is not ringfenced, things sometimes do not get done. However, this Government are committed to funding local authorities well, and we have done that through the spending review.
We are also committed to saying to local authorities, “You are best placed to make decisions for your area and assess what is needed. We will support you and encourage you to make the right decisions.” It is a balancing act, but debates like this give us an opportunity to reinforce the important message from Government that access to facilities and public toilets for all who need them is a crucial part of what local government should be doing.
Daniel Francis
As the Minister said, we were friends for many years in London local government prior to being elected to this place. I want to make two points. First, there is the issue of the Changing Places that have been provided in recent years and the amount of information out there about them. In the last week, I have written to a number of providers about cases where the money was provided or the facilities were set up under the new regulations, yet nobody has advertised that they exist, or they have not been made available. Would the Minister commit to working with me to write to local authorities to remind them to get that information out there?
Secondly, on cross working, as I said earlier, that needs to be provided not just by local government but by the Department of Health and Social Care and the Department for Transport as well. I very much hope the Minister is in the same position next week, working to secure a meeting for me to see how we can continue that spend across Departments.
Nesil Caliskan
My hon. Friend is right to highlight the important point he made earlier. I was coming on to say that of course I absolutely welcome a dialogue with him, but also with the consortium that has been referenced in the debate, which does such good work already. I am happy to meet with the consortium myself, but I am also confident that MHCLG and all current or future Ministers would welcome that engagement and dialogue. My hon. Friend is right that these sorts of facilities are successfully delivered only if there is a cross-governmental commitment.
Regulation and funding are part of that challenge, but we also need a joint recognition of the challenges in our communities to be able to see things delivered. The consortium is clearly playing a valuable role in articulating those challenges. It is absolutely right that MHCLG has that engagement and I am confident that it will going forward. I am happy to discuss with my hon. Friend any letters, correspondence or meetings that we need to have as a Department in the coming weeks and months to make sure that we can continue to make the case for these facilities.
Let me address the point about specific Government Departments and the opportunities that we face now because of Government initiatives and changes, which we do not want to lose, so that we can improve facilities for those who have needs. I was shocked to hear that so many NHS hospitals do not have the provision that we are talking about. That is not acceptable, and I think that all our constituents would be surprised to hear that. I am very happy to take that away and speak to colleagues in other Departments; I think they, too, will be surprised. It is a good example of where we need cross-governmental working, and I welcome the input from Members on how we might be able to do that.
I recognise the important points made about transport. The Government’s commitment to accessible transport is demonstrated in the spending that we have committed to the railways. Because of that, there is an opportunity to make sure they are accessible, and our transport hubs will play a key part in that. I will take those two specific points away.
I recognise the point that my hon. Friend made on modernising software and maps. A needs map, if you will, feels like quite an obvious thing that we could do, which would really make a difference to constituents across the country who simply do not know if there is a facility. An ability to map out the gaps could also give the necessary encouragement to Government and local authorities to allocate the moneys that are required to set up facilities.
I recognise the strength of feeling across the House in this very important debate on ensuring that public spaces are accessible, inclusive and supportive of people’s dignity and independence. I pay tribute to my good and hon. Friend the Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford. The very best of politics are people who just get things done. I saw that for many years in local government, when he got things done, and he gets things done as a Member of Parliament too, but nobody who knows him will say that he is a soft touch in any way. He is formidable and effective. He is my hon. Friend, but he will tell me if we are doing something wrong as a Government, as he has.
Rishi Sunak
I add my thanks and congratulations to the hon. Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford (Daniel Francis). Before the Minister wraps up, I thank her for a very considered, informed and thoughtful response to the debate. Whatever happens next week, I very much hope that she is in a position to continue being a champion of this cause in Government, because I think she would do it very well.
Nesil Caliskan
That is very generous of the right hon. Member. I again thank all Members for their contributions and provide my reassurance that MHCLG will be committed to doing everything it can to meet the challenges that our constituents face.
Sir Alec Shelbrooke (in the Chair)
To put the fear of God into the Minister, I call Daniel Francis to wind up.
Daniel Francis
As the Minister knows, I will hold her to account on this issue and continue to pursue it. I thank her very much for the commitments that she has given today that we can continue to pursue. I thank the hon. Members for Chester South and Eddisbury (Aphra Brandreth), for Bath (Wera Hobhouse) and for Strangford (Jim Shannon), my hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe (Juliet Campbell) and the right hon. Member for Richmond and Northallerton (Rishi Sunak) for their contributions and for outlining family experiences that I know only too well. This is an issue that I knew very little about 10 years ago; but when you start on that path as the parent of a disabled child, you find out these things.
I became a campaigner on this cause during my time in local government and will continue to campaign all the time that I am in this House. We are very thankful in this country for the progress that we have made on this matter; we need to remember that there are more Changing Places toilets in this country than in the whole of the European Union. If people travel abroad, the real progress that we have made is apparent. Certainly, in some of our neighbouring countries, it is possible to count on one hand how many Changing Places there are in the entire country. We have made great progress, but there is still more to be done.
I thank the right hon. Member for Richmond and Northallerton for paying tribute to Zack Kerr. I know that he continues to lobby my hon. Friend the Member for Hyndburn (Sarah Smith), in whose constituency he lives, on this matter. He and I have written to each other on this issue, and I know about his great involvement in the campaign on motorway service stations and the great credit that he rightly should be taking for that. I again thank all Members for their contributions today.
There is that piece of work to do. The Changing Places Consortium has a map, and it is looking at how we roll that out. However, there are also gaps in provision, particularly for those in more rural constituencies. If my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Sarah Russell) had been here today, she would have spoken about the real gaps in her rural constituency.
There is also the issue of how we bring that information together; in terms of accessibility today, much more so than 10 years ago, we can do that. I will push for us to sit down and look at how we bring Government Departments together. I will also go back to local government across the country and make sure that it is doing all it can, not only to provide new facilities, but to advertise those that it already has.
Sir Alec Shelbrooke (in the Chair)
I will take this opportunity to wish all hon. and right hon. Members, along with departmental staff, Doorkeepers, Clerks and Hansard Reporters, a very pleasant recess.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered capital funding for Changing Places toilets.
Written Corrections
(3 weeks, 6 days ago)
Written CorrectionsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Ministerial Correction
(3 weeks, 6 days ago)
Written CorrectionsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
(3 weeks, 6 days ago)
Written CorrectionsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Sarah Champion
I really welcome the statement and all the commitment that the Government are giving to nature. I know that the 30 by 30 plan is focused just on land, with the justification being that 40% of our waters are marine protected areas, but the Joint Nature Conservation Committee has said that less than 1% of our MPAs are assessed as being truly protected. Will the Minister please tell us when she will focus the next plan on marine protection, which one hopes would include a ban on bottom trawling?
Mary Creagh
The Water Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Haltemprice (Emma Hardy), is only too happy to meet my hon. Friend to discuss bottom trawling. I believe that about 32% of our waters are currently protected.
[Official Report, 13 July 2026; Vol. 789, c. 656.]
Written correction submitted by the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the hon. Member for Coventry East (Mary Creagh):
Mary Creagh
The Water Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull West and Haltemprice (Emma Hardy), is only too happy to meet my hon. Friend to discuss bottom trawling. I believe that about 40% of our waters are currently protected.
Written Statements
British Steel
(3 weeks, 6 days ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Chris McDonald)
I wish to make a statement on British Steel.
The public interest test
The Steel Industry (Nationalisation) Act 2026 grants powers to allow the Secretary of State to bring a steel company into public ownership where it is necessary in the public interest. Ministers must carefully consider the public interest test and the likely costs prior to exercising the powers. In the case of British Steel Ltd, it has important capability in the production of several essential steel products, which are integral to the construction and maintenance of our critical national infrastructure.
Given the financial challenges that the company is facing and has faced for some time, the Government’s assessment is that, without taking it into public ownership, where a plan could be developed for a sustainable future, there is a significant risk that it would fail and this capability would be lost. Such an outcome would directly disrupt the national rail network and increase supply chain risk for industry, including major infrastructure projects. It would reduce UK steelmaking capacity to around half of the requirements anticipated by 2035, leaving the UK vulnerable to volatility in international markets and international supply chains. All of these outcomes would be significant and difficult to reverse.
The Government’s assessment, based on the relevant factors, including cost considerations, is that it is necessary in the public interest to nationalise British Steel Ltd. We have not taken this decision lightly but we consider that it is the only viable route forward in these circumstances.
Nationalisation
The Government have nationalised British Steel Ltd. Its transfer to public ownership took place this morning, using powers granted by the Steel Industry (Nationalisation) Act 2026.
Steel underpins the growth-driving sectors of the Government’s industrial strategy, and British Steel is among the largest steel producers in the UK. The decisive action taken today secures its immediate future, secures steelmaking in support of our steel strategy, and supports the jobs and steelmaking communities that have underpinned the business for decades.
Nationalisation brings to an end the temporary special measures that were applied under the Steel Industry (Special Measures) Act 2025, which secured the continued operations of Scunthorpe’s blast furnaces. The Government would like to place on record our appreciation for the continued dedication and professionalism of the company’s workers and management throughout this period of uncertainty.
Nationalisation brings stability to the firm and its workforce, and allows it to look forward, making steel in the national interest, owned by the people of this country. All business, jobs, customers and suppliers continue as normal through the transfer into public ownership.
Company governance
British Steel is now a Government-owned company and public non-financial corporation, with the Secretary of State as its sole shareholder. The Government are putting in place a new board of directors who will bring extensive commercial and industrial expertise to support the company and management in stabilising operations and moving the firm on from its current poor commercial position. The board will prioritise the health and safety of the firm’s workforce. The board will be set clear objectives by Ministers, and will include representatives from UK Government Investments and the Department for Business and Trade to support the Government’s shareholder interests.
The board will be responsible for developing a plan to transform British Steel into a commercially and environmentally sustainable steelmaking enterprise, and for exploring possible options for private sector investment. The board will also be tasked with ensuring that the voice of workers is at the heart of the company, working with management, employees and trade unions, including worker representation on the board.
Compensation
The Government recognise that this is a significant intervention. The Government have and will always respect and adhere to our legal obligations under domestic and international law.
The former owner of British Steel Ltd was Jingye Group. The Government held commercial negotiations with the group over the potential acquisition by Government of British Steel, but unfortunately it was not possible to reach an agreement that represented value to the taxpayer. The Government’s view is that the commercial value today of the business, given its history of loss making and its current poor financial position, is nil.
Following nationalisation, the Steel Industry (Nationalisation) Act 2026 requires the Government to introduce a compensation scheme through regulations. These will be laid and debated by Parliament in the autumn. The regulations will provide for the appointment of an independent third-party valuer, who will assess what compensation, if any, is owed to the company. We will abide by the final outcome of this process and pay any compensation accordingly.
The compensation scheme regulations will include a right to appeal the determinations of the independent valuer to the upper tribunal. We expect that the independent valuer will invite submissions from the affected parties. The Government will publish the final determinations of the independent valuer and lay those before Parliament.
Throughout the negotiations mentioned above, the Government have engaged in good faith.
Financial assistance
The Government understand the interest from parliamentarians in the public funding offered to British Steel and the plan for its future.
All financial assistance offered to British Steel under the provisions in the Steel Industry (Nationalisation) Act 2026 will be reported in the ordinary way. In addition, the Government will publish on a quarterly basis for at least one year, written ministerial statements to give contemporary information on financial assistance offered. These will replace the written ministerial statements offered pursuant to the Steel Industry (Special Measures) Act 2025, since the special measures applied under that Act have now been superseded by nationalisation.
The Government anticipate that the relevant committees in Parliament will take an interest in the company’s annual report and strategic plans, and will be pleased to support its scrutiny of these.
The Government are ambitious for the future of British Steel and committed to working collectively with the workforce to achieve the best possible outcome for the business.
[HCWS273]
Fireworks Consultation
(3 weeks, 6 days ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Kate Dearden)
I am today informing Parliament of a consultation on fireworks which has just been launched.
Millions of people enjoy fireworks responsibly as part of cultural, religious and community celebrations. There is an existing legal framework in place to address situations where fireworks and other pyrotechnics are misused. However, I am also aware of the concerns raised by charities, parliamentarians and members of the public about the impact of fireworks.
Many people have been in touch with me to share their own experience of how fireworks have affected them, their family, their animals, or their wider community. I am grateful to them for taking the time to set out their concerns. These accounts add valuable context alongside the data provided by local authorities, emergency services, animal welfare organisations and the fireworks industry.
In response, I am launching this consultation which proposes reforms to fireworks legislation. These proposals focus on addressing the key harms raised, particularly noise from non-professional fireworks displays and the contribution of fireworks to antisocial behaviour, while continuing to allow people to enjoy fireworks safely and responsibly, including as part of important community and cultural celebrations. Specifically, the consultation seeks to gather evidence and capture a wide range of views on proposals to:
Restrict the availability of the noisiest fireworks to the general public, with louder products only available to professional users.
Add products deemed to be carrying unacceptable risks to the existing list of banned pyrotechnic products.
Review the regulations for the broad range of fireworks and pyrotechnic products currently classified as lower risk, to better reflect the different levels of risk they pose.
The responses and evidence gathered will be used to refine these proposals, making sure that we keep public safety, and the impact on people, animals and property, central to this work. Please be assured that all perspectives and evidence will be considered carefully.
This consultation will run for 12 weeks, and a copy can be found at https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/fireworks-and-pyrotechnics-in-the-uk
[HCWS275]
Special Advisers Annual Report
(3 weeks, 6 days ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister (Darren Jones)
Special advisers are a critical part of the team supporting Ministers. They add a political dimension to the advice and assistance available to Ministers while reinforcing the impartiality of the permanent civil service by distinguishing the source of political advice and support.
Special advisers are temporary civil servants, and their costs are met by the Government Department in which they are based. Each year, the Cabinet Office publishes a report on the total cost and number of special advisers across Government. Today, the Cabinet Office will be publishing its report for the previous financial year (April 2025 to March 2026).
Departments also routinely publish data quarterly on special advisers’ gifts, hospitality and meetings with senior media figures.
[HCWS289]
Covid-19 Inquiry Response Costs
(3 weeks, 6 days ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Paymaster General and Minister for the Cabinet Office (Nick Thomas-Symonds)
The UK covid-19 inquiry is examining the UK’s response to and impact of the pandemic. The Government are fully committed to supporting the work of the covid-19 inquiry and to learning lessons from the covid-19 pandemic to ensure the UK is better prepared for a future pandemic. Quarter 1 Quarter 2 Quarter 3 Quarter 4 Cumulative total for 2025-26 Cost of UK covid-19 inquiry response unit staff (including contingent labour costs) £5,015,000 £4,299,000 £3,486,000 £2,345,000 £15,145,000 Number of UK covid-19 inquiry response unit staff (full-time equivalents) 248 207 167 111 N/A Quarter 1 Quarter 2 Quarter 3 Quarter 4 Cumulative total for 2025-26 Total legal costs £4,993,000 £6,339,000 £3,788,000 £1,226,000 £16,346,000
The Government recognise the unprecedented and wholly exceptional circumstances of the pandemic. The inquiry is therefore unprecedented in its scope, complexity and profile.
The independent UK covid-19 inquiry publishes its own running costs quarterly. The chair is under a statutory obligation to avoid unnecessary costs in the inquiry’s work and has been clear as to her intention to complete her work as quickly and efficiently as possible.
I would like to update the House on the costs to the UK Government associated with responding to the UK covid-19 inquiry.
Figures provided are based upon a selection of the most relevant Departments and are not based on a complete set of departmental figures, and different Departments organise their response teams in different ways, according to business need. As such, these are not precise figures for accounting purposes. Ensuring a comprehensive and timely response to the inquiry requires significant input from a number of key Government Departments, including, but not limited to, the Cabinet Office, the Department of Health and Social Care, the UK Health Security Agency, the Home Office and HM Treasury, many of which are supported by the Government Legal Department. While every effort has been made to ensure a robust methodology, complexities remain in trying to quantify the time and costs dedicated to the inquiry alone.
It should be noted that alongside full time resource within Departments, inquiry response teams draw on expertise from across their organisations. These costs, including those associated with staff taking time to provide written or oral evidence, are not included in the costs below.
Breakdown of staff and costs 2025-26
The Government response to the UK covid-19 inquiry is led by inquiry response units across Departments. These associated staff costs for Q4 2025-26 are below and include retrospective adjustments for Q1-3.
Q4 number of UK covid-19 inquiry response unit staff— 111 full-time equivalents.
Q4 cost of UK covid-19 inquiry response unit staff—£2,345,000 (including contingent labour costs).
Financial year 2025-26 (Q1 + Q2 + Q3 + Q4), total cost of UK covid-19 inquiry response unit staff—£15,145,000 (including contingent labour costs, and retrospective adjustments for Q1-3).
Table: breakdown of staff and costs 2025-26
Inquiry response unit legal costs 2025-26
Inquiry response units across Government Departments are supported by the Government Legal Department, co-partnering firms of solicitors, and legal counsel. These associated legal costs—excluding internal departmental advisory legal costs—for Q4 2025-26 are below and include retrospective adjustments for Q1-3.
Q4 legal costs—£1,226,000.
Financial year 2025-26 (Q1 + Q2 + Q3 + Q4), total legal costs—£16,346,000 (including retrospective adjustments for Q1-3).
Table: inquiry response unit legal costs 2025-26
[HCWS276]
National Policy Statements for Nuclear Energy Infrastructure: Review
(3 weeks, 6 days ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Energy (Michael Shanks)
My hon. Friend Lord Vallance of Balham, Minister of State for Science, Innovation, Research and Nuclear, has today made the following statement:
My Lords, the nuclear regulatory review set out a stark challenge for all of us: Government, regulators and industry.
The Government are meeting this challenge by taking forward all 47 recommendations. Delay has a cost, so we have committed to implementing these reforms by the end of 2027.
As part of this we have set out our plan to introduce the nuclear regulation Bill in this parliamentary Session.
We know that simply announcing reforms is not enough. I have chaired the first Nuclear Regulatory Implementation Panel.
This panel will hold industry, regulators and the Government to account for implementing the delivery plans for each recommendation and driving the culture change required to build our nuclear nation.
I am today informing the House of the Government’s intention to review and update the national policy statement for nuclear energy, EN-7, in response to the nuclear regulatory review. This statement is made in accordance with section 6(4A) of the Planning Act 2008, which requires the Secretary of State to lay a statement before Parliament announcing the review.
EN-7, designated in 2025, established the planning policy framework for nuclear energy infrastructure in England and Wales, and introduced a modular approach that enables targeted updates while providing regulatory certainty.
Since its designation, there have been developments in the regulatory and policy landscape, including the nuclear regulatory review, which identified opportunities to clarify and improve the operation of the regulatory and planning framework for nuclear infrastructure.
The Government therefore intend to review EN-7 at pace, making use of its modular structure to ensure that it continues to reflect these developments and remains effective. The Government expect to consult on any proposed updates in due course. Parliamentary scrutiny will take place as required once any amended national policy statement is laid before Parliament.
The Government intend to conclude the review by the end of 2026, with any updates to EN-7 published in 2027, subject to parliamentary scrutiny. The current form of EN-7 will continue to apply while the review is under way.
In parallel, the Government intend to initiate a review of the national policy statement on geological disposal infrastructure, and of the previous national policy statement on nuclear power, EN-6. This approach reflects the Secretary of State’s duty under section 6 of the Planning Act 2008 to keep national policy statements under review, including reviewing all current national policy statements by February 2028.
Only through ambitious reforms and cultural change can we deliver what is needed: less duplication, bureaucracy, and a process that is more appealing for investors.
[HCWS282]
Environmental Improvement Plan and Office for Environmental Protection Progress Reports
(3 weeks, 6 days ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Mary Creagh)
Over the last year we have taken significant action on nature recovery. In December 2025 we launched our revised environmental improvement plan to restore nature, move to a more circular economy and protect our environmental security. We know the scale of the challenge, and we are matching our ambition with action.
Today I am laying our annual progress report in delivering the EIP over the reporting period April 2025 to March 2026, as required by section 9 of the Environment Act 2021. This includes progress towards achieving Environment Act targets, and the latest evidence of changes in the natural environment.
We have progressed a broad and ambitious programme of reform, investment and delivery over the reporting period. This includes:
publication of the land use framework to transform decision making so that we use land more effectively
securing over £7 billion for nature recovery through the farming budget, the largest investment into nature in history.
setting a new vision for water and plan to reform our water sector and the wider water system through the water White Paper
quadrupling water company investment under “Price Review 2024”, to clean up our rivers, lakes and seas announcing a ban on wet wipes containing plastics
publication of the UK’s first ever perfluoroalkyl and polyfluoroalkyl substances plan
committing £1.1 billion to improve local recycling services across England, enhancing waste management and community outcomes
publication of the good food cycle strategy and delivery of priority outcomes for healthier, more affordable, sustainable and resilient 21st-century UK food system
publication of the carbon budget growth delivery plan and methane action plan
announcing that at least £10.5 billion will be invested by March 2036 to construct new flood and coastal erosion schemes and repair existing defences
announcing investment of over £1 billion in the next stage of development of a new national biosecurity centre at Weybridge
announcing two new national forests, in addition to the Western forest
opening the King Charles III England coast path, the world’s longest managed coastal path, and delivering the first of nine new coastal paths, the Mersey valley way.
The revised EIP sets us on a clearer path to deliver Environment Act targets by setting ambitious yet achievable interim targets and publishing detailed delivery plans to drive progress. This will require sustained delivery at pace and scale over several years. The Government remain committed to delivering our environmental targets. We are making good progress in meeting the targets in some areas, while we face challenges in others. For several target areas, it is still too early to draw reliable trends on progress from the data, but we will continue to develop and improve environmental monitoring.
I am also laying the Government’s response to the Office for Environmental Protection annual assessment of progress for 2024 to 2025, well ahead of the statutory deadline in January 2027, to streamline the EIP reporting cycle and support the important role that the OEP plays in monitoring and reporting progress towards the EIP’s environmental targets. I have also laid a revised statement that explains the Government’s approach to monitoring, evaluating and reporting on the condition of the natural environment, in line with the requirements of section 16 of the Environment Act.
Together, these reports better enable external scrutiny and transparency of our progress and ensure that delivery planning is informed by monitoring and evaluation learning. The EIP is a long-term, whole-of-Government plan delivered in partnership across society. We are taking positive steps and strengthening our evidence base to support long-term environmental improvement. I am grateful to Parliament and stakeholders, including the Office for Environmental Protection, whose scrutiny helps to shape our approach.
[HCWS283]
Dartmoor Ponies
(3 weeks, 6 days ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Emma Reynolds)
I wish to update the House on the decisive action that we are taking to secure the long-term future of Dartmoor’s iconic pony populations through a package of new protections and financial support.
Dartmoor’s pony populations and environmental land management schemes
Dartmoor’s heritage rare breeds and semi-wild ponies are a much-cherished part of Dartmoor’s landscape and cultural heritage. They also play an important role in conserving protected environmental sites, including sites of special scientific interest, on the moor. This Government are committed to ensuring that their numbers do not fall below current levels
From today, we are going beyond recommendation 27 of the Fursdon review of protected site management on Dartmoor in 2023 to delink ponies and cattle for the calculation of agri-environment scheme stocking rates. Dartmoor’s ponies will be completely removed from stocking rate calculations in new environmental land management agreements, so that farmers do not face a choice between keeping ponies and maintaining sheep or cattle. Pony numbers will also be monitored across the moor to ensure that they remain at least at current levels. As part of the overall grazing management approach on protected sites in Dartmoor, I have asked Natural England only to consider where existing populations of ponies graze, rather than their overall numbers.
New ELM agreements on Dartmoor will be negotiated on an individual basis, reflecting the needs of the sites they are managing. I want to make it clear, however—by affirming our commitment to maintaining current pony populations on Dartmoor—that if any reductions in the existing pony populations were to occur, this will not release any capacity to increase levels of sheep or cattle grazing on the moor agreed under ELM schemes.
Dartmoor’s resident ponies will continue to remain exempt from being included in any seasonal livestock removal requirements in the shepherding actions within the sustainable farming incentive and the countryside stewardship higher tier—CSHT ELM—scheme offers.
We also intend to introduce a separate pony supplement into SFI and CSHT scheme offers to ensure that there is no economic incentive to reduce pony populations as a result of participating in DEFRA schemes and provide additional support to allow ponies to continue their vital conservation grazing role on the moor.
We will also review the native breed actions in these schemes to see whether the approach could enhance support for “at-risk” native breeds, working with interested parties.
Making a real change to the condition of protected sites on Dartmoor
Dartmoor is one of England’s most important and distinctive landscapes, home to internationally important habitats, wildlife and SSSIs, but large parts of Dartmoor are in long-term ecological decline. Achieving the right balance of grazing is essential to supporting both nature recovery and the long-term future of the moor’s farming communities.
There is broad agreement that grazing approaches on Dartmoor need to change to improve the condition of the valuable habitats found on Dartmoor. DEFRA remains committed to finding flexible and nuanced approaches to grazing on Dartmoor and to doing so through the work of the Dartmoor land use management group—DLUMG—set up following the Fursdon review.
The DLUMG is bringing together a land use framework for Dartmoor and undertaking trials to demonstrate what works to improve condition of its protected sites. Subject to agreement of a clear workplan for DLUMG work going forward, I have asked the group:
to help ensure that their trials complement projects under development on Dartmoor through landscape recovery. I want this work to help to build the evidence base, test adaptive grazing approaches and inform improvement of protected site management.
to develop a Dartmoor-wide management framework that allows for approval of a whole Dartmoor set of grazing principles for ponies, cattle and sheep. This framework will take time to develop but I see it as essential to enabling improvements to the environmental condition of the moor so that future generations can enjoy the wide diversity of species and habitats Dartmoor offers.
Agreeing proposals for ELM agreements on Dartmoor
Finally, I want to ensure that ongoing discussions around landscape recovery projects, new CS higher tier and continuing higher level stewardship agri-environment agreements on Dartmoor demonstrate an openness to flexible and adaptive approaches to grazing on the moor while we await the results of the DLUMG trials. With respect to ponies, these discussions will also be conducted fully in line with the principles set out above.
While we await results from the DLUMG trials, I have asked Natural England that any proposed changes to grazing on Dartmoor through ELM schemes should be approached sensitively. To support their negotiations, DEFRA will work closely with Natural England, with support from the DLUMG, to collectively agree:
short term grazing management on Dartmoor under ELM schemes;
any transitional approaches that might be required to bring existing stocking rate levels in expiring agreements to those required to support improvements in habitat condition under new CSHT agreements; and
the evidence used to support grazing management, working with Defra’s chief scientific adviser and her team.
Conclusion
I believe the approach I have set out here will help us ensure that collectively we are able to agree a balanced approach to help improve management of protected sites on Dartmoor, maintain pony populations and to support farmers and commoners who play a vital role on Dartmoor’s landscape.
[HCWS274]
Water Company Resilience to Heatwaves
(3 weeks, 6 days ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Emma Hardy)
I wish to update the House on the action this Government are taking to strengthen water company resilience to heatwaves and sustained hot weather.
The Met Office outlook for July to September 2026 indicates that a hotter than usual three-month period is more likely than normal. Higher temperatures can place significant pressure on water resources and infrastructure, increase customer demand, and heighten the risk of localised supply interruptions. It is therefore essential that water companies maintain robust plans to protect customers and sustain supplies during periods of severe and prolonged heat.
This year has already been challenging for water supplies. Some parts of the country have received lower than average rainfall this spring, such as the Anglian region where only 39% of expected rainfall fell. Combined with record spring temperatures, this has reduced reservoir and groundwater storage and river flows across a number of regions.
Alongside recent heatwaves, water companies have increased supply to meet rising demand. During the Met Office red heat warning, Thames Water supplied an additional 316 million litres of water per day compared with the previous year, while Anglian Water increased production by up to 30%, equivalent to supplying a county the size of Lincolnshire. Despite these pressures and some localised supply interruptions, the sector avoided widespread disruption and maintained supplies to the vast majority of customers.
On Thursday 2 July, I brought together the senior leadership of Water UK and those water companies most affected by the recent Met Office amber and red heat warnings to review the sector’s response to the recent period of extreme heat, assess preparedness for the remainder of the summer, and agree the actions necessary to strengthen resilience and protect customers during any future periods of sustained hot weather. The meeting examined lessons from recent heatwaves and the actions needed to reduce future risks to customers.
Temporary use bans are in place across a number of regions in response to high levels of demand. TUBs are currently in place for South East Water customers in Kent, Southern Water customers in Hampshire and the Isle of Wight, South West Water customers in mid-Devon and parts of east Devon, and across the Anglian Water region. Cambridge Water and Affinity Water have also announced TUBs which will come into force shortly. Such measures can help manage demand and protect supplies during periods of sustained pressure.
Everyone has a role to play in using water wisely, particularly during periods of sustained hot weather. I expect water companies to provide customers with clear and timely information on the practical steps they can take to reduce the amount of water they use during periods of peak demand.
The Government will maintain close oversight of water sector resilience throughout the summer. My officials remain in regular contact with the sector, regulators and resilience partners to monitor demand, water resource availability, infrastructure resilience and incident preparedness. I expect all water companies to manage periods of exceptional demand, protect vulnerable customers and respond effectively to incidents. Where performance or preparedness falls short, I will not hesitate to take the action needed to minimise impacts on customers.
I welcome Ofwat’s announcement of a £30.5 million redress package for South East Water for failures that left thousands of households without water for days. The package was developed following a joined-up approach between water regulators, targeting the best possible action to address SEW’s failures. This is in line with the Government proposed water reforms, which will involve the new regulator taking a supervisory approach—enabling a broader and better understanding of company performance, earlier intervention and prevention of further decline. The package also includes requirements to produce a performance improvement plan, setting out how the company will deliver sustained improvement in its performance, and an independent monitor to support Ofwat to assess progress against the plan.
A reliable supply of clean water is fundamental to public health, economic growth and community resilience. Alongside immediate action to prepare for summer pressures, this Government are delivering the long-term reforms needed to build a stronger and more resilient water sector.
Through our programme of water reform, we are strengthening regulation and accountability while ensuring companies deliver the investment needed to improve infrastructure and resilience. We will create a single, powerful regulator, giving Government and regulators, for the first time, a clear system-wide view of company performance and stronger tools to intervene where companies fall short. We will also introduce a water ombudsman, ensuring that customers have a stronger voice and clearer routes to redress when things go wrong.
This builds on the Water (Special Measures) Act 2025, which introduced the toughest sentencing powers ever applied to lawbreaking water company executives and powers to ban unjustified executive bonuses. Together, these reforms will strengthen accountability and help restore public confidence in the water sector.
We will also introduce statutory resilience standards, improve asset mapping and strengthen oversight of critical infrastructure to help water companies prepare for climate change and more frequent periods of extreme heat.
[HCWS279]
Official Development Assistance Target
(3 weeks, 6 days ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Chris Elmore)
My noble Friend the Minister of State for International Development and Africa, the right hon. Baroness Chapman of Darlington, has today made the following statement:
The FCDO’s annual report and accounts 2025-26 reports that in 2025, on a provisional basis, the United Kingdom did not meet its target to spend the equivalent of 0.7% of gross national income on official development assistance.
The International Development (Official Development Assistance Target) Act 2015 envisages situations in which a departure from meeting the target of spending 0.7% of GNI on ODA may be necessary, including due to economic circumstances, fiscal circumstances and circumstances arising outside the UK. The fiscal circumstances did not allow for ODA spending to be returned to 0.7% of GNI in 2025.
This Government are committed to restoring ODA spending at the level of 0.7% of GNI as soon as fiscal circumstances allow. The principles for a return will be met when, on a sustainable basis, the Government are not borrowing for day-to-day spending and underlying debt is falling. We will monitor future forecasts closely against these tests. The latest forecast from the Office for Budget Responsibility indicates that the tests will not be met in this Parliament. The Government are working hard to create the conditions to enable the ODA fiscal tests to be met by prioritising growth—stronger growth will help in time to get underlying debt down.
As required by section 2 of the 2015 Act, an Unnumbered Act Paper has been laid before Parliament and is in the same terms as this statement.
[HCWS288]
Afghanistan
(3 weeks, 6 days ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Mr Hamish Falconer)
Today I am updating the House on the UK’s ongoing humanitarian assistance to Afghanistan and setting out how the Government will continue to support the Afghan people in the years ahead.
Nearly five years after the Taliban takeover in August 2021, the humanitarian situation remains severe and at risk of further deterioration. Nearly 22 million people will require humanitarian assistance this year, including 17.4 million facing acute food insecurity. Afghanistan faces one of the highest global burdens of child and maternal malnutrition, with nearly 5 million women, girls and boys expected to require treatment in 2026. Recurrent climate shocks, including drought and flooding, continue to drive food insecurity and vulnerability, and ongoing structural challenges continue to impact access to essential health services. These pressures are compounded by regional instability, economic fragility and disrupted supply chains.
The Taliban’s severe restrictions on women and girls, including on access to education, employment and participation in public life, continue to undermine fundamental freedoms and contribute to broader human rights concerns in Afghanistan. Women and girls should have equal access to opportunities and be able to participate fully in society. The ongoing denial of these rights presents a significant barrier to Afghanistan’s long-term development, stability and prosperity.
As we enter a new spending review period, this is an opportunity to reaffirm and renew our long-standing commitment to supporting the people of Afghanistan. As set out today by the Minister of State for International Development and Africa in her written ministerial statement to Parliament, and in the FCDO’s annual report and accounts published today, the UK will provide £105 million per year over the next three years—2026 to 29—to support the Afghan people. Afghanistan will remain one of the UK’s largest official development assistance portfolios during this period, reflecting both the scale of need and our continued commitment.
This funding will continue to focus on addressing the most severe impacts of Afghanistan’s protracted crisis. We will prioritise lifesaving services, including health and nutrition; support essential education; protect the most vulnerable at great risk of harm, abuse and discrimination; and strengthen livelihoods and climate resilience. We will also increase engagement with non-Taliban-affiliated Afghan partners to support locally led solutions, including assistance for Afghans returning to Afghanistan from neighbouring countries. Women and girls will remain central to this approach, as highlighted in the UK international strategic framework on women and girls 2026. Across UK-supported programmes, we will prioritise their rights and needs, and remain steadfast in our commitment that at least half of those reached by UK aid are women and girls.
We continue to engage third-party monitoring in addition to FCDO oversight, to ensure that aid is directed to those most in need. We expect to publish full results for 2025-26 in the summer. This will build on the 2024-25 FCDO bilateral ODA results, which supported at least 2.7 million people, including more than 1.7 million women and girls.
The UK continues to demonstrate solidarity with Afghan women. For example, we hosted events with the exiled Afghan women’s refugee cricket team during their visit to the UK in the summer, including an audience with His Majesty the King and engagements with the Foreign Secretary and me. The UK will continue to provide platforms for Afghan women to advocate for their rights and ensure that their voices inform UK policy and programming. The Foreign Secretary’s “All In” campaign, launched in December, reinforces the Government’s commitment to tackling violence against women and girls globally. In addition, the UK special envoy to Afghanistan visited Kabul in May and met a wide range of Afghan women and civil society groups to hear directly about their situation and their requests of the UK Government, and UK humanitarian advisers travelled to Islam Qala to understand at first hand the situation for vulnerable Afghans returning from Iran.
We continue to use our leadership to ensure an effective humanitarian response across the international community. We are taking forward with donors and partners the joint commitments we developed in the London compact on food security and nutrition in Afghanistan in late 2025. We continue to use our bilateral investment and engagement to work with the World Bank and the Asian Development Bank to support vital financing of basic services, especially in health, where the international funding outlook remains challenging.
The UK will continue to stand with the people of Afghanistan, providing lifesaving assistance, supporting the rights of women and girls, and working with partners to sustain essential services and support longer-term resilience.
[HCWS293]
Macolin Convention
(3 weeks, 6 days ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Seema Malhotra)
On 6 December 2018, the UK signed the Council of Europe convention on the manipulation of sports competitions (the Macolin convention).
The Government laid this convention in Parliament on 4 June 2026 in the Miscellaneous Series under Command Paper number CP 1595, accompanied by an explanatory memorandum.
In accordance with section 21 of the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010 (CRaG), I wish to inform the House that the 21 sitting day period that relates to this convention pursuant to section 20(1) CRaG is to be extended. The 21 sitting day period is to be extended by 15 sitting days.
This extension follows a request from the House of Lords International Agreements Committee for further time to consider the convention.
[HCWS284]
Official Development Assistance: Programme Country and Regional Allocations
(3 weeks, 6 days ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Chris Elmore)
The Minister of State for International Development and Africa, my noble Friend the right hon. Baroness Chapman of Darlington, has today made the following statement:
The FCDO official development assistance programme allocations that I set out on 19 March 2026 (HCWS1425) reflect how we are modernising and improving our approach to international development, following a year spent reviewing our priorities and redefining how we work.
In that statement, we did not publish individual country allocations. This was to allow our teams across the network to communicate with their host Governments before we published country allocations. Today I am updating the House with the FCDO’s ODA programme country and regional allocations from 2026-27 to 2028-29.
As I set out in March, the world has changed dramatically in the last three decades. Crises and instability across the world undermine our security and prosperity at home, as we have seen play out in the strait of Hormuz. Poverty, insecurity and climate risks are increasingly concentrated in fragile and conflict-affected states. New actors are shaping global development, and the countries we work with today want genuine partnership, not the paternalism of the past.
In reaction to this, we are modernising and improving our approach to have the greatest impact abroad and secure the best value for money for taxpayers at home. We are sharpening our focus on priorities that align with partner needs, UK public interest, and where we can drive real change. The changes we are making are encapsulated in four shifts, as we move from donor to investor, from service delivery to systems strengthening, grants to expertise, and international intervention to local leadership. Our policy paper, published today on gov.uk. sets out our approach in greater detail.
Our bilateral programmes are being transformed. We will prioritise bilateral ODA where humanitarian needs are most acute, including fully protecting bilateral ODA allocations to Ukraine, Palestine and Sudan. The proportion of spending in FCAS will increase by around 13 percentage points to over 70% of all country and regional spending by 2028-29.
In other contexts, we will transition away from spending high levels of grant ODA, but our ambition and effort will remain high—our bilateral programmes will support partnerships with Governments to strengthen systems, leverage finance and move away from reliance on aid. Our work will be focused on areas that transform lives and build stability, and it will be demand-led, including: meeting the most basic need with lifesaving humanitarian assistance; supporting women and girls and helping them thrive; keeping children learning, even in conflict; upholding international humanitarian law and protecting vulnerable populations; strengthening health security; creating jobs and economic opportunity; and investing in climate action that protects people and prevents future crises.
We are limiting reductions of bilateral aid to humanitarian crises across the middle east and north Africa, and south Asia and Afghanistan, including in Afghanistan, Yemen, Syria, and Lebanon. We will phase out FCDO bilateral country allocations to G20 countries, except in Turkey, where we help to share the burden on account of their hosting of refugees.
We expect that well over £1 billion per year of UK multilateral ODA will go to sub-Saharan Africa, as measured by imputed multilateral share statistics. That is because of our choices to increase our contribution to the World Bank’s International Development Association—which delivers around two-thirds of its work in Africa—and maintaining strong support for the African Development Fund. Factoring in imputed multilateral ODA and bilateral programmes that operate in sub-Saharan Africa but which are managed from the UK, we expect the share of FCDO ODA to sub-Saharan Africa to stay approximately the same—at around one third—compared to recent years.1 Moreover, British International Investment—the UK’s development finance institution—invests 60% of its portfolio in Africa. The UK’s new Africa approach recognises that delivering strong partnerships requires looking beyond aid, consistent with our modern international development approach. It is a shift towards modern, equal partnerships based on shared interests and using the full range of UK tools, not just ODA.
This reflects the broader shift that we are making to our bilateral partnerships. To support progress on shared global challenges, we need long-term, resilient partnerships. Stakeholders increasingly expect a more equal partnership with the UK. We need a systematic and coherent approach to build trust and credibility and to shift toward genuine, equitable partnership. We need to build partnerships beyond short-term transactions; partnerships that foster long-term co-operation based on ideas of mutuality—mutual respect, interest, accountability and learning.
Although we will prioritise funding where humanitarian needs are most acute, in other countries our ambition and effort will remain high—shifting to a demand-led partnership model that makes the most of what the whole UK has to offer. Our country network will have the flexibility and autonomy to deliver development interventions in the sectors that our partners want and need.
Our bilateral allocations will be complemented by a full spectrum of work. We are increasing the share of FCDO ODA we spend through multilaterals, targeted strategically towards the most effective multilateral organisations, such as the World Bank’s International Development Association, where each £1 we invest unlocks £4 of additional finance. BII’s £6.6 billion portfolio will help deliver the UK’s shift from donor to investor. Our international climate finance will balance support between mitigation and adaptation and maintain a focus on nature. A range of communities of expertise will work with countries to access trusted policy advice and strengthen systems.
Setting three years of ODA programme allocations provides teams with the predictability required to manage the transition to spending 0.3% of GNI on ODA. All plans are subject to revision as, by its nature, the Department’s work is dynamic. Programme allocations are continually reviewed to respond to changing global needs.
See table “FCDO country and regional ODA programme allocations 2026-27 to 2028-29”, which is available at:
https://questions-statements.parliament.uk/written-statements/detail/2026-07-16/HCWS287
1 Based on internal FCDO analysis forecasting FCDO region specific bilateral spend and UK imputed multilateral share data, compared to 2022-25 statistics on international development.
[HCWS287]
Adult Social Care: Fair Pay Agreement and Workforce Pathway
(3 weeks, 6 days ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Care (Stephen Kinnock)
Today, I am proud to inform the House that this Government are setting out the details of the adult social care fair pay agreement, a landmark reform that will turn the page on decades of low pay, insecurity, and the exploitation of adult social care workers. In doing so, we are one step closer to delivering on our manifesto commitment.
Backed by £500 million in funding in 2028-29, the fair pay agreement will introduce annual negotiations between employer and worker representatives to agree improvements to pay and conditions for the adult social care workforce for the first time.
Led by an independent negotiating body, the fair pay agreement will strengthen the voice of workers and employers, support recruitment and retention, and help build a stable, sustainable, and growing domestic workforce.
Our response to the consultation sets out how the system will operate in practice, including how negotiations will be conducted, how agreements will be reached and implemented, and the role of the independent chair in overseeing the process. The Government will appoint a chair in the autumn and negotiations will begin in 2027.
Alongside the consultation response, we are also publishing part 3 of the care workforce pathway. The pathway is the first time the adult care sector, a workforce of 1.5 million, has seen a universal career structure with consistent standards and expectations around the knowledge, skills, values and behaviours required to deliver high-quality, personalised care and support. By adding 10 new role categories we are expanding the pathway’s coverage to nearly all adult social care workforce roles that are not health or social work, recognising and celebrating the breadth and diversity of the sector. Using the pathway, staff looking for progression can plot a route for their career and existing staff with specialist skills can be recognised for what they do, such as enhanced care workers.
Since coming into office, this Government have passed the Employment Rights Act, strengthened sick pay, supported professionalisation and raised the minimum wage. These much-needed reforms will mean that care workers have better job security, take home higher pay, and see improved professional recognition for their work.
There is more to do, but these important steps will help us lay the foundations for the national care service and demonstrate this Government’s ongoing commitment to tackling the recruitment and retention of the adult social care workforce, by ensuring that there are opportunities to develop and progress, and that people feel recognised and rewarded for the vital work they do.
[HCWS281]
High-Caffeine Energy Drinks: Age Restrictions
(3 weeks, 6 days ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Mrs Sharon Hodgson)
Today I am publishing the Government response to the consultation on banning the sale of high-caffeine energy drinks to children in England. The Government have decided to introduce legislation to ban the sale of high-caffeine energy drinks to children under 16 in England. This action will help create the healthiest generation of children ever and supports our shift from sickness to prevention.
The Government have a manifesto commitment to ban the sale of high-caffeine energy drinks to children in England. This has been subject to consultation which ran from 3 September to 26 November 2025. Having considered the consultation responses and the available evidence, this Government are taking this decisive action to support the health of our children.
The consultation received 1,095 responses from individuals and organisations, including businesses, public health organisations and enforcement bodies. Overall, there was significant support with the proposal to introduce an age restriction on the sale of high-caffeine energy drinks.
There is a large body of evidence consistently reporting an association between the consumption of high-caffeine energy drinks and a range of possible negative outcomes on children’s physical and mental health, as well as their education. We estimate that around 100,000 children consume high-caffeine energy drinks at least daily in England. Of particular concern, research highlights that children living in more deprived areas and households are more likely to consume these drinks. This means the possible negative outcomes on health and education are likely to be felt unequally across society.
The Government have decided to introduce a statutory age restriction as an effective and proportionate way to reduce children’s access to high-caffeine energy drinks.
The proposed legislation will:
Ban sales of high-caffeine energy drinks to children under 16 years.
Apply to drinks, other than tea or coffee, containing more than 150 mg caffeine per litre.
Apply in all retail settings both in-store and online, while excluding business-to-business sales
Ban sales of high-caffeine energy drinks through vending machines.
Provide a minimum implementation period of six months following the publication of the consultation outcome.
Be enforced by local authorities.
The Government will now take forward secondary legislation using powers contained in the Food Safety Act 1990. Subject to parliamentary approval, we intend for the ban to come into force in April 2027.
[HCWS292]
Undercover Policing Inquiry: Consultation
(3 weeks, 6 days ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Shabana Mahmood)
Today I am launching a consultation on the future of the undercover policing inquiry (UCPI). This Government are committed to delivering justice and to ensuring that public inquiries are able to provide answers, accountability and recommendations within a reasonable timeframe.
The UCPI was established in 2015 to examine undercover policing in England and Wales since 1968. Sir John Mitting, the current chair of the inquiry, will retire in 2027. His retirement provides an opportunity to consult those affected, core participants and others with an interest in the inquiry on how its remaining work should best be taken forward. I am grateful to him for his work on the inquiry.
The terms of reference of the inquiry are broad. In addition to examining the role of undercover policing in the prevention and detection of crime, the inquiry is required to examine the motivation for and scope of undercover police operations, their effect on individuals and the public, the extent of Government awareness of such operations, and the adequacy of the legal, policy and judicial framework governing undercover policing. The inquiry is also tasked with reviewing the extent of the duty of disclosure in criminal proceedings involving undercover police operations and the scope for miscarriages of justice where disclosure was inadequate.
The terms of reference envisaged the inquiry concluding within three years. It has made real progress in investigating the Metropolitan police’s special demonstration squad and produced an interim report on tranche 1 of its work (relating to 1968-82) and will publish an interim report concluding its work on the special demonstration squad next year. More than a decade after it was established, the inquiry remains ongoing. As at the end of March 2026, the inquiry has spent £137 million. Ministers remain concerned about the length and cost of the inquiry and the delay in providing outcomes to those affected.
The consultation will seek views on the future structure, scope and format of the work needed to bring to a conclusion the remaining matters that the inquiry is set to investigate. It is not a re-opening of evidence, nor a call for new factual material about undercover policing or individual cases. Respondents will be invited to focus on how the inquiry’s remaining areas of work should be prioritised and delivered.
Respondents to the consultation might wish to share their views on alternative ways the inquiry might discharge its remaining areas of work. They might wish to consider fairness to victims and those who were affected by undercover policing, bearing in mind transparency and public confidence, proportionality of cost and duration as well as the ability of different approaches to deliver meaningful recommendations. The consultation has been published on the gov.uk website https://www.homeofficesurveys.homeoffice.gov.uk/s/UCPI-consultation and will close on Thursday 20 August 2026.
We plan to announce our decision on the future of the inquiry, informed by this consultation in autumn 2026.
[HCWS278]
Border Security Commander Annual Report 2025-26
(3 weeks, 6 days ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Shabana Mahmood)
Today I can announce that the first border security commander’s annual report, for the period 2025 to 2026, is being laid before Parliament.
In our manifesto, this Government promised to create a new border security command to tackle the organised criminal gangs behind illegal channel crossings, with the ability to deliver a response befitting the scale and urgency of this challenge. As this report shows, it has had a significant impact since becoming operational in July 2024. In 2025 alone, we have invested an additional £100 million into the system through the BSC, with a commitment to invest an additional £280 million per year by 2028.
Over the past year, investments across the system have enabled a substantial uplift for National Crime Agency officers tackling OIC, as well as building and enhancing operational capabilities. The NCA has made tackling OIC its main effort and has heavily pivoted resource and capability to tackle the facilitators and enablers of people smuggling, leading to a 55% rise in OIC-related arrests. UK law enforcement has collectively delivered 46% more disruptions—29% of those major disruptions with a long-term impact—74% more arrests and the seizure of hundreds of boats and engines. This has been supported by the passing of the Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Act 2025, which introduced new counter-terror-style powers and new offences to investigate and deter offending.
The BSAI Act also requires the border security commander to report on how they have exercised their functions over the previous financial year and set out their assessment of the performance of the border security system. This report outlines how the commander has strengthened, aligned and driven the system to deliver against clear strategic priorities to counter the threat we face.
The report also includes an evaluation of the collective contributions to outcomes and highlights the positive impact of the border security system in tackling illegal migration and reducing dangerous crossings, including increased investment in the border security command and across the system, strengthened co-operation with international and domestic partners, and a renewed international effort to disrupt organised immigration crime.
The public rightly expect us to control who and what enter this country. It is one of the most fundamental duties of the state and remains a top priority for me and the Government I serve in. This report sets out significant achievements which amount to a major upscaling of the UK’s border security system. It has been a strong start, but further work is needed. We know that illegal migration remains one of the defining issues of our time. The BSC will be at the forefront of our continued efforts to meet that challenge.
I thank all partners and agencies, both domestically and internationally, for their continued efforts to tackle this threat and protect the United Kingdom.
Copies of the report will be available in the Vote Office, and it will also be published on gov.uk.
[HCWS290]
Investigatory Powers Commissioner’s Office Report
(3 weeks, 6 days ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Shabana Mahmood)
This statement updates the House on the Investigatory Powers Commissioner’s investigation into how MI5 came to provide false evidence to the courts on whether or not it had confirmed the status of “Agent X” as a covert human intelligence source. This follows the then Home Secretary’s written ministerial statement https://questions-statements.parliament.uk/written-statements/detail/2025-07-03/hcws775 of 3 July 2025 and the Prime Minister’s written ministerial statement https://questions-statements.parliament.uk/written-statements/detail/2025-09-16/hcws928 of 16 September 2025.
Following the direction provided by the Prime Minister in September 2025, Sir John Goldring, the Deputy Investigatory Powers Commissioner, has conducted a comprehensive investigation into how MI5 came to fall short of its high standards, ultimately misleading the High Court, the Investigatory Powers Tribunal, the Investigatory Powers Commissioner and associated special advocates. This investigation has now concluded, and Sir John Goldring’s report is complete. Its findings have been submitted to the Prime Minister and the courts.
I would like to thank Sir Brian Leveson, Sir John Goldring and the wider team at IPCO for the hard work that they have undertaken over recent months. I am grateful for their willingness to complete this investigation at the behest of the courts, which is outside the usual remit of IPCO’s work.
Sir John’s conclusions make stark reading. His report outlines a series of failings both individually and organisationally within MI5 that led to false evidence being included in its witness statements. The High Court and the Investigatory Powers Tribunal will now consider their next steps, and we will need to await the outcome of those judicial proceedings.
Nevertheless, I am taking decisive action to ensure that MI5 is held accountable for the failings identified in Sir John’s report and to strengthen the assurance mechanisms by which I hold the director general to account for the actions of the Security Service. This includes a package of measures to enhance accountability, increase independent challenge, review key operational policies, and improve scrutiny of MI5’s litigation strategy and practice. Specifically, I will:
Strengthen current structures where I hold the director general of MI5 to account. This will continue to sit alongside extensive wider assurance and oversight across Government, Parliament and the judiciary;
Increase independent senior-level challenge and external leadership and accountability of MI5’s internal reform and improvement programmes;
Enhance work across legal teams to better understand and scrutinise MI5’s approaches to litigation cases.
MI5 plays a critical role in keeping our country, and the public, safe. I am deeply grateful for the commitment and dedication of its staff. However, given the significance of its responsibilities, it is imperative that the service maintains the highest standards of integrity, accountability and rigour, particularly in its engagement with the courts. This case demonstrates the damage to public, parliamentary and judicial confidence in our security services when MI5 gets it wrong.
Over the last 12 months, MI5 has undertaken a comprehensive programme of work to learn from and rectify the errors exposed by Sir John’s report, as well as previous independent reviews into this case, as has been recognised in the IPCO report. This work has made significant progress, but there is more to do, and MI5 must continue to learn and to hold itself fully to account. I believe the new measures this Government are taking to strengthen oversight will ensure it does.
A copy of the IPCO report will be placed in the Libraries of both Houses and will be available on IPCO’s website https://www.ipco.org.uk/
[HCWS285]
Local Government Reorganisation
(3 weeks, 6 days ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Steve Reed)
This Government are driving the most ambitious programme of local government reform in a generation, replacing the inefficient two-tier system with new unitary councils so that all parts of our country can access strong services, and are ready for devolution.
We need to devolve power out of Whitehall so that we can rebalance wealth, power, and opportunity across our country. This is the second richest country in Europe, and yet England has seven of the ten poorest regions in northern Europe. That is the case for change.
But devolution requires strong local councils delivering good public services, supporting economic growth, which are closely connected to the communities they serve.
Doing this right means recognising the unique contributions that different areas make to people’s lives, as well as to the national economy. Some of our smaller cities are highly productive, but have been constrained by tight boundaries, set decades ago, which stop them from building the homes they need. Others are more rural, with significant demand for social care services and affordable housing. Local government should be set up to address the unique circumstances of each area and design public services tailored to each community.
Reorganisation provides us with a once-in-a-generation opportunity to ensure that councils genuinely represent the communities they serve today and stand the test of time. We know that people care about their own villages, home towns, high streets and communities. But in many parts of the country, existing boundaries do not match local economies, public services, or local identities.
But we will not achieve effective devolution or enable effective place-based public services with outdated and misaligned structures that slow down delivery, fragmenting public services, hampering housebuilding and slowing down important decision making. We need to make sure that new councils are grounded in place and are genuinely connected to their communities.
Decisions
I am pleased to announce today further decisions for local government reorganisation, a key milestone for our ambitious programme. This follows the decisions previously announced on unitary government in Surrey, Essex, Hampshire, Norfolk and Suffolk.
Fourteen areas were invited to put forward proposals by 28 November 2025. From this, my Department received 52 proposals. I would like to thank councillors and officers for their hard work and collaboration on these proposals. As the House was informed on 5 February, all the proposals received were taken to consultation, which closed on 26 March 2026.
Further consultations were also undertaken across May and June 2026 in East Sussex and Brighton and Hove and West Sussex.
I considered each proposal carefully against the criteria set out in the invitation letter, alongside the responses to the consultation, all representations and all other relevant information to assess the proposals. Each decision was made on a case-by-case basis, based on the merits of each proposal, respecting local circumstances and taking into account the views of local people.
Today, I have written to the leaders of councils for all sixteen remaining areas. I have decided to implement the following proposals, subject to parliamentary approval, in these areas:
Derbyshire and Derby: Two-unitary option submitted by Chesterfield borough council, Derby city council, Erewash borough council and High Peak borough council. In implementing this option, I will exercise the power to modify the proposal submitted by South Derbyshire district council to achieve the boundary change councils requested.
Devon, Plymouth and Torbay: Four-unitary proposal submitted by Exeter city council and Plymouth city council. I will exercise the power to modify the proposal to achieve the boundary change Exeter city council and Plymouth city council requested alongside the proposal.
East Sussex and Brighton and Hove: Two-unitary proposal submitted by East Sussex county council, Eastbourne borough council, Hastings borough council, Lewes district council and Rother district council. I will exercise the power to modify the proposal to achieve the boundary change requested by Brighton and Hove city council, with the exception of Falmer parish.
Gloucestershire: One-unitary proposal submitted by Cotswold district council, Gloucestershire county council, Stroud district council, and Tewkesbury borough council.
Hertfordshire: Four-unitary proposal submitted by Broxbourne borough council, Dacorum borough council, Hertsmere borough council, North Hertfordshire district council, Stevenage borough council and Welwyn Hatfield borough council. I will exercise the power to modify the proposal to achieve the boundary change requested by the proposing councils, with the exception of Arbury ward.
Kent and Medway: Four-unitary proposal submitted by Dover district council, Swale borough council and Thanet district council.
Lancashire, Blackpool and Blackburn with Darwen: Four-unitary proposal submitted by Chorley borough council, Lancaster city council, Preston city council, Ribble Valley borough council, South Ribble borough council and West Lancashire borough council.
Leicestershire, Leicester and Rutland: Two-unitary proposal submitted by Leicester city council. I will exercise the power to modify the proposal to achieve the boundary change Leicester city council requested alongside the proposal with the exception of the part parishes.
Lincolnshire, North Lincolnshire and north-east Lincolnshire: Four-unitary proposal submitted by the city of Lincoln council. I will exercise the power to modify the proposal to achieve the boundary change requested by the city of Lincoln council.
Nottinghamshire and Nottingham: Two-unitary option requested by Nottingham city council. In implementing this option, I will exercise the power to modify the two- unitary proposal submitted by Nottinghamshire county council and Rushcliffe borough council to achieve the boundary changes requested by Nottingham city council.
Oxfordshire: Three-unitary proposal submitted by Oxford city council, including the adjoining area of West Berkshire council. I will exercise the power to modify the proposal to achieve the boundary change Oxford city council requested alongside the proposal.
Staffordshire and Stoke-on-Trent: Two-unitary proposal submitted by East Staffordshire borough council, Stafford borough council and Cannock Chase district council, and also by Stoke-on-Trent city council.
Warwickshire: Two-unitary proposal submitted by North Warwickshire borough council, Nuneaton & Bedworth borough council, Stratford-on-Avon district council and Warwick district council.
Worcestershire: Two-unitary proposal submitted by Bromsgrove district council, Malvern Hills district council, Redditch borough council, Worcester city council and Wychavon district council.
Further detail on the decisions for these areas is provided in letters to council leaders in the areas, which will be published on gov.uk later today. A summary of the responses to the consultations for proposals in these areas will also be published in due course.
In both Cambridgeshire and Peterborough and West Sussex, I am not announcing decisions, and I believe that further time is required as it is vital that we get these decisions right.
I remain committed to meeting the existing deadline, aiming for elections to new unitaries in 2027, with new councils going live in 2028.
Transition support
A broad support offer is in place for councils, including support to councils through our sector advisers and through funding to the Local Government Association for an enhanced support offer. We have already announced £63 million in capacity funding to support the reorganisation process, and I am pleased to provide further detail today on how this funding will be allocated.
Of the £63 million capacity funding, as well as the unprecedented £900,000 transition support to each new unitary already announced, we are committing up to £150,000 per each new unitary as supplementary funding for leadership capacity and continuity in children’s services, adult social care and public health. This is part of a wider package of support worth up to £10 million for children’s services, adult social care and public health leadership, which will also fund targeted development, mentoring and peer support for current, new and aspiring leaders.
In addition, up to £1 million of funding overall will be available to support the small number of areas with complex fire and rescue authority transitions.
Taken together, this means that areas undergoing local government reorganisation will receive more than £1 million per new unitary created. This is the first time reorganisation has been supported in this way and shows this Government are committed to supporting councils to get these reforms right. We will confirm details of these allocations in due course.
My Department will also continue to work closely with the Home Office, Department for Education, other Departments and agencies, as well as existing and new councils in Kent to continue vital work to support the unaccompanied asylum seeking children operations.
Next steps
Reorganisation is a shared endeavour between central and local government and we will need to continue collaborating closely to deliver it successfully. Everyone involved wants to see stronger local councils delivering better services, which will improve the lives of the people we serve.
We remain fully committed to the timetable already set out, with elections to the new unitary councils scheduled for May 2027, ahead of vesting day for the new councils to begin delivering services in April 2028.
I will place copies of the letter and the documents I have referred to in the House Library, and these will also be published on gov.uk today.
[HCWS286]
Local Planning Authority Capacity
(3 weeks, 6 days ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Housing and Planning (Matthew Pennycook)
It is essential that local planning authorities have the resources and skilled planners they need to provide a proactive, efficient planning service for local communities and support housing delivery, economic growth and the provision of infrastructure. Yet we know that planning departments across the country are experiencing challenges with resourcing, recruitment, retention, and skills gaps, and that in many cases these issues are having a negative impact on service delivery.
That is why the Government are investing heavily to boost local planning department capacity and capability. At the autumn Budget 2024, the Chancellor announced a £46 million package of investment into the planning system as a one-year settlement for 2025-26. At the Budget on 26 November 2025, the Chancellor announced a further £48 million of investment over three years to support local planning authorities to attract, retain and develop skilled planners over a sustained period.
However, we recognise that more must be done to better resource LPAs and drive better outcomes including faster determination times, improved service standards and stronger performance across the planning system. To address local planning department underfunding, we included in the Planning and Infrastructure Act 2025 powers that allow the Secretary of State to delegate planning-fee setting to local planning authorities, enabling them to recover costs and reinvest to provide a more efficient and responsive planning service.
To inform the implementation of this local variation model, the Government consulted earlier this year on a new national default fee schedule, based on 90% of estimated costs, and the wider framework for local fee setting.
I am today publishing the Government’s response to that consultation, which can be found on gov.uk at https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/fees-for-planning-applications. The response confirms that the Government will proceed with a national default fee based on 90% of estimated processing costs, providing a significant uplift in resources for local planning departments and establishing a robust national baseline ahead of the introduction of local fee setting powers. The regulations required to increase national planning application fees have been laid today.
The national default fee will remain in place and apply to all LPAs, unless an authority chooses to vary from the default fee for any or all application fee categories to reflect their own costs. Regulations and guidance for local fee setting will be taken forward in due course.
To justify a variation in fees, LPAs will need to evidence that the national schedule does not cover their costs. Having considered the feedback received, we have decided that LPAs should be able to set planning fees up to a maximum of 30% above the national default fee. This strikes an appropriate balance between supporting local flexibility and cost recovery, while providing applicants and developers with greater certainty about the extent of local fee variation.
We recognise that a small number of LPAs may face exceptional cost pressures that cannot reasonably be addressed within this limit. Where this the case, LPAs will be able to consult the Secretary of State with a view to providing robust evidence to justify a proposed fee level above the 30% cap. The operation of the cap, including the use of the approval mechanism and intervention powers, will be subject to further policy development and set out through future regulations.
Taken together, these changes will enable LPAs to secure the funding necessary to strengthen their capacity, invest in skilled staff, and deliver a more efficient, high-quality planning service, helping to unlock growth and accelerate the delivery of new homes.
It is vital that increased fees translate into improved performance. We will continue to monitor the speed and quality of LPA decision making and will take action where performance does not meet expectations. We also intend to review the performance regime to identify opportunities to strengthen it further and drive sustained improvements.
Finally, we intend to undertake a further consultation before the end of the year on the detailed design and implementation of the proposed planning-fee surcharge, including how it should operate in practice and be linked to improved performance of statutory consultees.
[HCWS291]
Wedding Law Reform: England and Wales
(3 weeks, 6 days ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Lord Chancellor and Secretary of State for Justice (Mr David Lammy)
Marriage is one of our most enduring and important institutions. For many couples, their wedding day is one of the most significant moments of their lives: a public expression of enduring love and commitment, through which two people enter into a legal relationship with the expectation that it will last a lifetime. The Government are committed to supporting and protecting marriage.
The current law governing weddings in England and Wales is rooted in legislation from the 18th and 19th centuries. It has not kept pace with the social and cultural changes that have shaped modern Britain. The result is a framework that is complex, inconsistent and restrictive, limiting where and how some couples can marry. As a result, many couples are unable to marry in a way which reflects their beliefs or are unable to afford the ceremony they want.
In response to the Law Commission’s report on marriage reform, the Government announced their intention to modernise weddings law in England and Wales. I am today publishing the consultation “Tying the Knot: Reforming weddings law in England and Wales” which seeks views on how these reforms should operate in practice.
The Government proposals are guided by four principles.
First, reforms will introduce a simple, fair and inclusive framework for all weddings. The consultation seeks views on a clearer and more consistent legal structure, with common rules applying to different types of ceremony. The proposals would also enable non-religious belief organisations, including humanists, to conduct legally binding weddings.
Second, the reforms will expand choice about how and where couples may marry. The consultation proposes moving away from a system based primarily on the building in which a wedding takes place, towards one focused on the officiant responsible for the ceremony. This would allow greater flexibility both over the location and the form of weddings, so that ceremonies can better reflect the couple’s beliefs and backgrounds, allowing them to marry in settings that are more meaningful to them. For instance, couples will be able to marry in areas of natural beauty such as forests or beaches.
The third principle is the importance of upholding the dignity and significance of marriage. As greater freedoms are introduced, the Government are clear that a wedding day must always reflect the serious and lifelong commitment that is marriage. The consultation therefore proposes a “dignity framework” which would set clear and consistent standards both for wedding ceremonies and locations and place a legal duty on officiants to ensure that weddings meet these standards.
The fourth and final principle is that reforms will strengthen the protections against forced, predatory and sham marriages. The consultation proposes modernising the preliminaries process that takes place before the wedding day, by introducing a digital system with more effective checks and greater visibility and transparency. These proposals seek to ensure that marriages are always entered into freely, with informed consent, and are not used to exploit vulnerable people or gain unfair advantage.
The consultation also seeks views on the role and regulation of officiants, including nominated officiants from religious and non-religious belief organisations, independent officiants and maritime officiants. It asks how officiants should be authorised, trained, monitored and held accountable and what role should be played by a central regulator.
Together, these proposals will make weddings cheaper, more inclusive and more accessible. This will allow more people who want to get married to do so in a way that is meaningful to them.
Next steps
The consultation will be open for 10 weeks and will close on 24 September. We welcome views from parliamentarians, religious and non-religious belief organisations, academics, charities, interest groups, independent celebrants, support organisations, local registration services and members of the public with an interest in the weddings law of England and Wales.
The Government will consider the findings of the consultation carefully before finalising our policy positions. Any finalised reforms would then be brought forward when parliamentary time allows.
Copies of the consultation will be available here: https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/tying-the-knot-reforming-weddings-law-in-england-and-wales. A Welsh language version and accessible versions will also be made available.
[HCWS280]
Coastguard Rescue Service
(3 weeks, 6 days ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Keir Mather)
I am making this statement to provide an update on the coastguard rescue service. I would like to begin by recognising the extraordinary contribution made by coastguard rescue officers across the United Kingdom. For generations, HM Coastguard’s coastal response has depended on people from local communities who choose to serve with professionalism, commitment and courage. That tradition remains at the heart of the coastguard rescue service today.
On 14 January 2026, the Court of Appeal found against the Maritime and Coastguard Agency in the case of the MCA v. Groom. This clarified that, by providing modest remuneration, the MCA had inadvertently created a worker relationship with coastguard rescue officers. A change was therefore required to restore the volunteer model, or enact the worker model, to ensure compliance with the judgment.
On 1 June it was communicated that the coastguard rescue service would change to an expenses-only volunteer model from September 2026. This was judged at the time to be the best option, based on the advice provided by the MCA, taking into account a variety of factors.
I have listened to the views and testimonies of coastguard rescue officers about how these changes might affect them. I visited a coastguard station in Southampton, met officers from Hill Head and Portsmouth teams, and heard at first hand the impact that changes could have on CROs and their families.
MPs across the House, on behalf of their constituents, have raised concerns through parliamentary questions, a Westminster Hall debate and an urgent question. This engagement has been invaluable. I have also heard the deep concerns from many in the coastguard rescue officer community about this change.
Given these concerns, my Department has undertaken further work to scrutinise the information that was provided to inform decision making. Having done so, it has become clear that parts of the information gathering process to inform MCA operational decisions—in particular, the two surveys undertaken—were not sufficiently detailed to properly reflect the impact of these changes.
I can therefore confirm that plans to move to the expenses-only volunteer model in September will not go ahead, and current arrangements will remain in place.
CROs must feel that their views have been heard, and that they are valued, respected and empowered to carry out their duties and I am committed to ensuring that we now take the time to robustly gather the information required to understand the full operational implications of future decisions, as well as the impact on individual coastguard rescue officers and the choices they will make. This will involve engaging with CROs directly, and ensuring that their views inform the decisions that we will take on the shape of the coastguard rescue service.
Over the coming months, the MCA will carry out further engagement with trade unions, coastguard rescue officers and Members of Parliament, to understand more deeply the potential impact of changes on individuals and operations. The insight gathered from this engagement will support the MCA’s understanding of operational implications, and inform future decisions on the shape of the coastguard rescue service.
In the longer term, the Department for Transport will explore options for how coastguard rescue officers can continue to be rightfully recognised and rewarded and have the flexibility to continue to serve their communities.
Ensuring the safety of the public along our coastline and continuing to properly recognise those who protect our communities through their vital work remain my key priorities.
[HCWS272]
Cranston Inquiry: Initial Response
(3 weeks, 6 days ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Transport (Heidi Alexander)
On 5 February 2026 Sir Ross Cranston published the Cranston inquiry’s report into the tragic events of November 2021 when at least 30 people died attempting to cross the channel in a small boat. The Government have today published an interim response to the report.
Our deepest sympathies remain with the survivors and the loved ones of those who lost their lives. I wish to express my sincere thanks to Sir Ross, for undertaking this inquiry with great care and diligence, and to all those who participated.
Search and rescue in the channel looks very different today than in 2021. Many crucial changes have been made including closer working with France, additional people and assets, and the adoption of new technologies, but it is important that we continue to learn and improve wherever possible, including learning lessons from the Cranston inquiry’s report.
Of the 18 recommendations made by the inquiry, 15 were principally operational in nature and three were focused on policy matters. This interim response focuses on the 15 operational recommendations which have all been accepted in full. The response also sets out the actions that have already been taken, and additional actions that will be taken, against each recommendation.
The Department for Transport and His Majesty’s Coastguard, part of the Maritime and Coastguard Agency, are dedicated to delivering our vital maritime search and rescue responsibilities and will continue to seek opportunities to learn and improve.
The Department is conducting a review of the MCA which will consider its functions, form, governance and performance. It will report to Ministers this year and inform the Government response to the outstanding recommendations of the Cranston inquiry.
I have laid a copy of the interim response in both Houses of Parliament.
[HCWS277]
House of Lords
Death of a Member: Lord Laming
The Lord Speaker (Lord Forsyth of Drumlean)
My Lords, I regret to inform the House of the death of the noble Lord, Lord Laming, on 15 July. I understand that there will be an opportunity for the House to pay tribute to Lord Laming in the coming days. On behalf of the House, I extend our condolences to the noble Lord’s family and friends.
Retirement of a Member: Lord Oakeshott of Seagrove Bay
The Lord Speaker (Lord Forsyth of Drumlean)
My Lords, I should like to notify the House of the retirement, with effect from today, of the noble Lord, Lord Oakeshott of Seagrove Bay, pursuant to Section 1 of the House of Lords Reform Act 2014. On behalf of the House, I should like to thank the noble Lord for his much-valued service to the House.
Artificial Intelligence: Legislation
(3 weeks, 6 days ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Taylor of Warwick
To ask His Majesty’s Government whether, and if so when, they expect to bring forward legislation on the development and use of artificial intelligence in the United Kingdom.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Science, Innovation and Technology (Baroness Lloyd of Effra) (Lab)
My Lords, AI has the potential for significant advances in science, productivity and living standards if adopted securely. While we are taking steps to develop our sovereign capability, we are also bringing forward the regulation for growth Bill to ensure that our regulatory environment drives the growth we need to seize the opportunities brought by AI. Through our world-leading AI Security Institute, we are supporting international safeguard developments and ensuring that the Government have the best understanding of model capabilities as they advance.
Lord Taylor of Warwick (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for that Answer, but I also say well done to the England football team for reaching the semi-finals of the World Cup. In doing so, they demonstrated AI—actual intelligence.
The stone age did not end because we ran out of stone. AI technology has given us amazing ways of solving everyday problems. The Minister mentioned the AI Security Institute. It plays an important role, especially concerning research, but it does not have powers to compel companies to engage with or to protect us against serious risks from AI. We know that AI can bring great benefits, from health to wealth, but it can also bring problems. Can the Minister therefore tell us when we will have AI regulation? The Government seem to have a “wait and see” attitude. AI also sees, but it does not wait.
Baroness Lloyd of Effra (Lab)
The Government are acting to ensure that the UK can grasp the transformative potential of AI. That includes developing our sovereign capability and, as the noble Lord mentioned, relying on the advice of the AI Security Institute. Our approach is that we will legislate where we need to. We have done so through the Online Safety Act and we are doing so in other areas where we see the need. We believe that the best way of regulating is through context-specific regulation, which will take into account the specific issues that arise when AI is adopted by particular sectors.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
My Lords, I declare an interest as an adviser to DLA Piper on AI regulation and policy. The Government followed Australia in its approach to access to social media for under-16s. Will they do the same with AI, now that Australia will be adopting mandatory standards for AI, as nine in 10 of the British public clearly want?
Baroness Lloyd of Effra (Lab)
The UK’s approach is to develop our sovereign capabilities. We are investing in infrastructure and in AI growth zones. We are working to ensure that everyone in this country benefits from the potential of AI and are upskilling 10 million workers. In respect of the regulatory environment, AI can be adopted in many different areas: it can advance drug discovery, or it can support teachers in classrooms so that they have more face-to-face time with pupils. It is right to take a context-specific regulatory approach.
Viscount Colville of Culross (CB)
My Lords, the Government have recognised that greater transparency about AI model training data would help rights holders to assert their rights. Can the Minister tell the House why she has not committed in principle to statutory transparency requirements for commercial AI developers?
Baroness Lloyd of Effra (Lab)
We set out our approach in March in respect of the issues around copyright and AI. We acknowledged that the approach we had taken previously in respect of the proposals we had put forward did not command the support of the creative industry or the technology industry—or indeed of noble Lords. We have set out a plan to take all that forward over the summer and beyond.
Lord Redwood (Con)
What benefits and staff reductions will the Government achieve with their £3 billion commitment to spending on AI for their own purposes?
Baroness Lloyd of Effra (Lab)
The noble Lord is right that there may be many advances in productivity and efficiency across all the public sector and, indeed, in the private sector. We are setting up the AI Economics Institute to make sure we are well informed with the best advice on the implications for the labour market and the fiscal environment. This is a rapidly developing technology. We are drawing on the best advice so that we can be best prepared to support the UK in this transformative potential.
Lord McNicol of West Kilbride (Lab)
My Lords, the increasing use of AI in education is transforming teaching and learning at all levels. The Government are currently focused on investment in AI skills for work, through tertiary education, as well as having introduced measures to reduce the burden on teachers through innovation funding—all to be welcomed. Will the Government recognise the importance of taking a stronger stance in exposing younger generations to the tools AI offers and commit to a more in-depth curriculum that teaches primary and secondary students the safe and correct ways to use these AI skills?
Baroness Lloyd of Effra (Lab)
My noble friend is absolutely right to highlight the fact that AI technology is with us today. It is absolutely right that, as he mentioned, we support all parts of society—children, students, workers—to understand this, discern it and use it wisely. That is why we are also developing our digital skills programme and ensuring that everybody can benefit from this transformative technology.
Viscount Camrose (Con)
My Lords, we understand the Government’s policy of placing most of the burden of AI regulation on to existing sectoral regulators, but the cyber security and resilience Bill will create new burdens for those regulators. The Minister will accept that this is collectively an extremely significant expansion of those regulators’ powers and workload. First, are any further additions planned? Secondly, are the Government taking steps to ensure those regulators have the necessary skills and resources? Thirdly, is the new Prime Minister aware of and supportive of this approach?
Baroness Lloyd of Effra (Lab)
The noble Viscount is right that the cyber security and resilience Bill will indeed place new obligations on regulators, but that goes hand in hand with the support and the changes in funding and fee recovery that they will be able, after consultation, to enact. They are also supported by the technical authority of the NCSC, which provides them with advice on this. It is obviously the nature of all regulatory activities that they must take into account developments in society and the economy, and the transformative impact of AI. The Regulatory Innovation Office supports regulators to look at how they can adopt AI themselves to improve their regulatory efficiency, as well as looking at developments in their own sectors.
Lord Houghton of Richmond (CB)
Can the Minister inform the House what body will hold ultimate responsibility for the authorisation and regulation of artificial intelligence in autonomous weapons systems?
Baroness Lloyd of Effra (Lab)
The Ministry of Defence has set out guidance for the adoption of AI in defence. I am afraid that I cannot recall the name of the document—I will need to write to the noble and gallant Lord with that—but it sets out exactly where humans should be involved in defence decision-making. The ministry has consulted and it has expert panels advising it on its approach.
Lord Beamish (Lab)
My Lords, I agree with my noble friend that AI is going to be transformational, but the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Houghton, raises a very important point about warfare, where it is going to be transformational and not necessarily for the good. I hear what my noble friend says about the MoD, but this will have to be approached on an international basis. We also have to recognise that some of our adversaries will not be concerned about regulation. Is that not a challenge that we should face now?
Baroness Lloyd of Effra (Lab)
My noble friend is right that AI is transforming the military and defence. It is indeed incredibly important that we work internationally. Last week, the UKAC co-ordinated the most recent meeting of the International Network for Advanced AI Measurement, Evaluation and Science, where we are working together with other countries’ ACs on best practices for model evaluations, using that expertise to build tangible international consensus to mitigate AI risks.
Lord Holmes of Richmond (Con)
My Lords, I declare my technology interests as set out in the register as an adviser to the Crown Estate and to Simmons & Simmons LLP. I thank the Minister for her response to my Written Question of 8 July, setting out what the Government are doing on the international stage, not least with the Council of Europe AI framework. But does the Minister agree that if the UK Government take a point-of-use, sector-by-sector approach then there will be accountability deficits, transparency difficulties and a lack of the three Cs that are crucial whether you are an investor, an innovator, a creative or, crucially, a citizen when it comes to AI: clarity, consistency and a coherent approach? Would an AI Bill not resolve that for the benefit of us all?
Baroness Lloyd of Effra (Lab)
It remains the case that we must be very attuned to developments in AI, in AI risks and in AI opportunities. We are extremely fortunate to have the AI Security Institute, which can provide us with that advice. Obviously, we will always look at whether there are regulatory or legislative gaps and we will act if we need to.
BBC Royal Charter: Gaelic Broadcasting
(3 weeks, 6 days ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness MacLeod of Camusdarach
To ask His Majesty’s Government whether they intend to ensure Gaelic broadcasting will be given the same certainty and sufficiency of funding as Welsh broadcasting under the next BBC Royal Charter.
Baroness MacLeod of Camusdarach (Lab)
I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper and I declare an interest as a member of the development board of Sabhal Mòr Ostaig, a Gaelic college on the island of Skye.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Culture, Media and Sport (Baroness Twycross) (Lab)
My Lords, the Government are clear about the vital role of Gaelic broadcasting: the BBC belongs to all of us and must reflect every community it serves. Charter review aims to put the BBC on a sustainable financial footing so that it can continue to deliver wide public value, including through the provision of Gaelic broadcasting. Alongside this, proposals detailed in the media Green Paper aim to ensure the long-term sustainability of public service media, including through minority-language broadcasting.
Baroness MacLeod of Camusdarach (Lab)
I am grateful for the Minister’s reply. It certainly is a step forward. Gaelic is one of the UK’s indigenous languages, and it is much older than English. It is fighting for its life, although the number of Gaelic speakers is increasing, and Gaelic broadcasting is pivotal in that role. Although MG Alba was created by legislation at Westminster, there has been no UK funding since the Lord Speaker left the other House. S4C in Wales is funded by the licence fee, with £22 million for programmes and £96 million in cash. BBC Alba gets no cash from the licence fee, only £10 million in kind from the BBC and another £15 million from the Scottish Government. All Gaelic broadcasting is asking for is parity of esteem. It is not a big ask for a priceless gain. I hope the Minister will carry on agreeing.
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
I agree with my noble friend on how important our UK languages are. Keeping them alive is part of not just our history but our culture for the future, and it should matter to all of us. The Government recognise the valuable contribution that providers of minority-language broadcasting have and their vital role in the preservation of our national heritage. The Government are considering the most appropriate arrangements for providing sustainable funding for minority-languages broadcasting as part of the charter review. MG Alba’s total budget stands at an estimated £420 per Gaelic speaker, including both BBC and Scottish Government spend. This compares to an equivalent of £260 per Welsh speaker for S4C. That is not to minimise the importance of it but to show that there is investment in this space.
Lord Wigley (PC)
My Lords, in supporting the noble Baroness’s plea on behalf of the Gaelic language, and as a one-time board member of S4C, there was never a time when S4C had the certainty of adequate future funding. Is the Minister aware that S4C has called for more medium-term funding through a multi-year funding settlement that allows for inflation and for protection from outside cuts? Will the Minister give serious consideration to such an approach, and thereby provide fair funding for both Welsh and Gaelic broadcasting services?
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
As I made clear, we want the charter review to put broadcasting on a sustainable financial footing. I will speak to my colleague Ian Murray about the points the noble Lord raises. We are clear that minority languages are a minority only to people who do not speak them. For those who do, minority languages are such an important aspect of our cultural life, and it is important that minority-language broadcasting is funded from the centre and open to all.
Lord Gove (Con)
My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady MacLeod, has made a vital point. Gaelic as an indigenous language is not just an integral part of the culture of these islands but the means of expression of two of the greatest poets of the 20th century, Sorley MacLean and Iain Crichton Smith. There is a statutory duty on the BBC to fund Welsh, which is quite right, but there is no similar statutory duty for Scots Gaelic. The last Government set up the Islands Forum, to ensure that the voice of Gaelic speakers was heard at the heart of Westminster. This Government abolished it. The Lord Speaker, when he was Scottish Secretary, ensured increased broadcasting funding for Gaelic. This Government have not yet made that commitment. Will the Government stand behind Gaelic speakers, whose contribution to our culture is so important?
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
I agree with the noble Lord on the importance of Gaelic speakers to our national culture. However, there is no one-size-fits-all approach to minority-language broadcasting models and how they are funded. The Scottish and UK Governments have a role to play to help ensure that relevant institutions and organisations have adequate funding so that they can deliver for audiences. We are considering, through charter review, how we can provide more certainty to Gaelic broadcasting and MG Alba.
Baroness Humphreys (LD)
My Lords, I wish the noble Baroness every success in her campaign to secure funding for Gaelic-language broadcasting. It is a very good campaign. Can the Minister say how the new charter will protect the local independent production sector in Wales from centralisation, as the BBC shifts small services to digital-first formats?
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
That is a very detailed question and I may have to write to the noble Baroness. Through the charter review, we are trying to make sure that we have a really broad and healthy sustainable model for the future, and it must support the smaller local organisations as well as national organisations. We are keen to make sure that works. I am happy to talk to the noble Baroness about that point.
The Lord Bishop of Newcastle
My Lords, from my time in New Zealand, I saw at first hand the benefit of intentional government investment in Māori-language broadcasting for younger audiences. What steps are His Majesty’s Government taking to ensure that Gaelic-language broadcasting remains accessible and relevant to younger audiences and is not merely retained as a residual service?
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
I am not sure that describing it as a residual service does justice to the work of the people working in Gaelic-speaking broadcasting. Historically, we have been clear that this must be for every part of the population that speaks the language. What has happened in Wales—we have had an increase in both Welsh and Gaelic speakers over the last couple of decades—demonstrates the power of investment in making sure that people have got access to the language in every part of the culture, and that must include young people and children.
The Earl of Kinnoull (CB)
My Lords, another language in Scotland is Scots. Indeed, Burns wrote roughly half his poetry in in Scots, not least “Address to a Haggis”. Can the Minister tell us whether there will be money directed at the preservation of Scots as a language as well in this process?
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
It is interesting, because I put that point to my officials. Noble Lords will need to wait and see as part of the charter review, but if people are campaigning for Scots to get similar recognition, please encourage them to get involved in the discussions around the charter review.
Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Lab)
In supporting my noble friend Lady MacLeod, and as a fellow Celt, I offer the example that Irish-language broadcasting in Northern Ireland is primarily funded by the BBC and the Irish Language Broadcast Fund, which is managed by Northern Ireland Screen and financially supported by DCMS, part of our own Government. Is there a potential solution for Gaelic broadcasting in Scotland in that model?
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
I think there is, potentially, but we need to make sure that we do not assume that a one-size-fits-all approach works across the piece. I am happy to take suggestions back to the department and to speak to my colleague Ian Murray from the other place about this. We are keen to make sure that all minority languages get what works for that particular area, rather than assuming that one size fits all. On Northern Ireland and Irish-language broadcasting, which works on a cross-border basis, we are keen to continue to support that from DCMS as well.
Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay (Con)
My Lords, unlike S4C, MG Alba does not have statutory designation as a public service broadcaster, which leaves it more vulnerable to budgetary pressures from the BBC. Only last month, the BBC announced cuts of £500 million and 550 jobs. Is this something that the Government will look at as part of the royal charter review to address the vulnerability that MG Alba and Gaelic broadcasting faces?
Baroness Twycross (Lab)
It is an interesting point. There is a statutory basis for Welsh broadcasting. Without undermining what we are trying to do in Wales, I refer noble Lords back to the fact that the budget per Gaelic speaker is considerably higher. A statutory basis on its own is not enough protection, but we will try to work through all these questions and make sure that we look at the models that work in different areas as part of our work in DCMS.
Imprisonment for Public Protection
(3 weeks, 6 days ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Ludford
To ask His Majesty’s Government what steps they are taking to address the continued detention of individuals serving Imprisonment for Public Protection sentences beyond their original tariff periods.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord Timpson) (Lab)
In the two years since being in government, we have made significant progress to support IPP prisoners. We have reduced the number of never-released IPP prisoners by 21% and the number of IPP offenders in the community by 70%. IPP recalls fell by 31% in 2025 compared to 2024, and we have also changed the law through the Sentencing Act. Around 100 IPP offenders became eligible for earlier licence termination when these changes were implemented on 1 June.
Baroness Ludford (LD)
My Lords, as the Minister has just confirmed, he said in the exchange with us on July 6:
“Noble Lords who know me will know that I do not lack ambition”.—[Official Report, 6/7/26; col. 11.]
He has again shown that is true. However, the pace of release of IPP prisoners is still too slow. Prospective new Prime Minister Andy Burnham spoke on Tuesday in the other place of the need to
“change the way this country thinks about and works towards justice”.—[Official Report, Commons, 14/7/26; col. 891.]
After this clarion call, does the Minister expect the new Government to match his ambition with greater resources, resolve and courage, so that by 2029 at the very latest the legacy of the shameful injustice of IPP sentences will be no more?
Lord Timpson (Lab)
The noble Baroness will not be surprised that everybody I meet in prisons and probation, and around the whole justice sector, is ambitious for IPP prisoners. We are committed to ensuring that they get the support they need to progress. I am still ambitious, so that is why we are supporting the hardest to reach, especially IPP prisoners, those who we know are really stuck in the system. We are trialling a new IPP advocate role and giving IPP prisoners more experiences so they can progress, with specialists working with them, and when they go to approved premises, they are staying there longer and have more support. All these initiatives will help, but we need to remain ambitious, because I know, as many of us do, that IPP prisoners can get through. Having employed many of them myself, I believe in second chances and that they can get through.
Lord Carter of Haslemere (CB)
My Lords, does the Minister agree that, if IPP prisoners beyond their tariff had been sentenced to a determinate term, which they would have been if they had had the good fortune to have been convicted on or after Monday 3 December 2012 and not before that date, they would have been released years ago?
Lord Timpson (Lab)
It is possible that some of these offenders may have been given a discretionary life sentence and therefore would still be subject to the parole process and therefore still in prison if they had not the met the statutory release test. It is also possible that some of these offenders may have been given standard determinate sentences and therefore could have been released by now. However, all IPP offenders are subject to review by the independent Parole Board, which has, in some cases repeatedly, found them unsafe to be released.
Lord Garnier (Con)
My Lords, does the Minister agree that there are now about 1,000 IPP prisoners still in custody and, of that 1,000, only about 50 are unsuitable for release at any time, by virtue of either their health or the seriousness of the criminal offence for which they were convicted? Does it not seem right that we should make an aggressive effort to release some of those 950 and require the Parole Board and those in charge of early release to concentrate on them rather than, for example, child rapists or other forms of sexual criminal?
Lord Timpson (Lab)
The noble and learned Lord is incorrect: 896 IPP prisoners have never been released; that is 11% down on last year. My view is that we need to get them into the right prison. Two years ago, only 70% of them were in the right prison; now 91% are in the right prison, and we need to support them so they can get out. Prisons like HMP Grendon, which is a therapeutic community, do good work with IPP prisoners, and HMP Warren Hill has specialist units to support them. I want them to progress as quickly as possible but as safely as possible, so when they are out, they can stay out and do so safely.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
My Lords, in his maiden speech in the other place, in relation to the Hillsborough law, Andy Burnham talked passionately about miscarriages of justice, as we have heard. He also commended victims’ families for campaigning for decades against state wrongs. Taking him at his word, will the Minister draw the new Prime Minister’s attention to the IPP scandal and suggest meeting IPP prisoners’ families to hear details of this shameful blight, on their lives and on the criminal justice system, and to hear their frustration when the state unfairly cites dangerousness as an excuse while releasing proven dangerous rapists early to solve an estate mismanagement problem—that is, prison overcrowding? They want to talk to people in power about this; the new Prime Minister is perfect. Please facilitate the introduction.
Lord Timpson (Lab)
I am glad the noble Baroness thinks that the new Prime Minister will be perfect. I was pleased to see the noble Baroness yesterday outside the Ministry of Justice with a number of ex-IPP prisoners and their families. I reiterate the important role that families play in the justice system. There are 193,000 children affected by parental imprisonment and a number of those are children whose parents are on IPP sentences. Some have come home and are then recalled back into custody. One of the key elements for people reforming and not reoffending is family ties. Yes, they need a job and somewhere safe to live, and we want them to be well, but families have a really important role, which is why we need to keep supporting the families of IPP prisoners.
Lord Blunkett (Lab)
I commend my noble friend for the enormous amount of work, time and energy that he is putting into this area. I know it is greatly appreciated by those who have campaigned for years. Will he take a look at the slowing of the work on progression plans and the progression board, not simply in relation to those who have never been released—the 896 to whom he referred—but on the length of time that those who have been recalled are spending in prison, which is of considerable concern in terms of what we are trying to do to rehabilitate and get people back into the community?
Lord Timpson (Lab)
I thank my noble friend for his kind words, and I look forward to seeing a number of noble Lords at the IPP Peers meeting on Monday. I will take away the point on the progression board that he mentions. However, I reiterate that we need prisons that work and a Probation Service that works. One of the things that I been focused on is performance in the justice system. I am pleased to inform Members of your Lordships’ House that 70% of our prisons and 90% of our probation regions are now performing better than they were. Self-harm and assaults on staff are down. To me, all that shows that we are getting to the right place, which will make it easier for often complex prisoners to get on so they can get out and stay out.
Lord Hope of Craighead (CB)
Will the noble Lord say how many IPP prisoners he has met and talked to within the last four weeks, and what he has learned from those conversations?
Lord Timpson (Lab)
The last IPP prisoner I met was in HMP Birmingham—I think I was there three weeks ago. He was back on recall and facing further charges. The nature of the conversation was quite troubling, because I learned from him that he felt safer in prison than in the community. Also, he did not think that open prisons were always that good for long-term complex prisoners, which surprised me because I am a big fan of open prisons, having recruited lots of people from them. I went away with the challenge of how we ensure that IPP prisoners, when they go to open conditions, are not brought back. Too many go there quite quickly and then come back.
Lord Keen of Elie (Con)
My Lords, the Government’s recent report, published last week, acknowledges the obvious point that self-harm, violence and behavioural instability among IPP prisoners are linked to the long-term distress caused by the sentence itself, yet those very reactions may be liable to be relied upon as grounds to refuse release. Does the Minister consider that additional assessments and, indeed, progression plans are going to be sufficient to break that terrible cycle, or is more needed? Are we not required to be a little more courageous about the release of these long-term prisoners?
Lord Timpson (Lab)
The noble and learned Lord is right to bring this up because they are often the most complex individuals in our whole prison estate. The level of self-harm among this cohort can be pretty terrifying. There are a significant number of IPP prisoners in secure mental health hospitals, and that is the right place for them. However, we need to ensure that we have them in the right prison. As I mentioned, HMP Grendon and HMP Warren Hill are therapeutically informed environments, and the Phoenix wing we are starting next month in HMP Aylesbury is a specialist wing where we are trying things we have never tried before. The people we call our “red rated” are those who are the furthest away from release and they are often the most challenging IPP prisoners. We need to get progression support around them and give them hope, because we need them to believe that they can get out—too many times they have seen people go to progression panels and not get out. We need to make sure we do what we can to give them hope.
Key Stage 2 Exam Results
(3 weeks, 6 days ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the impact of the failure of Pearson to deliver Key Stage 2 exam results on time.
Baroness in Waiting/Government Whip (Baroness Blake of Leeds) (Lab)
My Lords, Pearson has fully apologised for its failure to return the key stage 2 results on time and for the impact on schools, pupils and parents. The delay was unacceptable, but I can confirm that results have been returned successfully today. The Government will use all contractual provisions to ensure that Pearson is held to account for its failings, and there will be a full independent review into how such serious failings could have occurred.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, I welcome the review. The Minister will know that the SATs exams at the end of year 6 are very important in the life of children and their parents. With results coming nine days late, some schools have already broken up, having broken up last week, and most schools break up tomorrow, so schools have one day to go through the results, identify any errors or anomalies, communicate with parents and be prepared to support children who did not reach the required standard. Will my noble friend the Minister explain to the House just what sanctions are available against Pearson? Does she not think it calls into question the wholesale outsourcing of important services like this? There are shades of the Capita issue in relation to Civil Service pensions.
Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)
My noble friend raises several significant and important matters and explains that some schools have already broken up. We fully recognise the frustration and inconvenience this delay has caused for schools, pupils, families and, as he rightly says, teachers. Schools should expect results to be delivered to the published timetable. We are exploring all options for recourse, including financial penalties and termination of the contract. As I have said, the Secretary of State has confirmed there will be a full independent review. I can confirm that, as the Secretary of State announced today, it will be led by Dame Christine Gilbert, currently chair of Ofsted. Of course, further details and terms of reference will be set out shortly.
Lord Mohammed of Tinsley (LD)
My Lords, this time of year is very stressful as school leaders come to the end of the academic year. I welcome the Minister’s statement today about a review, but what assessment have the Government made of the level of disruption and additional workload that primary schools now face because of the delay in publication of the key stage 2 results? Will the Government also look at what lessons can be learned from that review and commit to actually implementing those in future for national assessments?
Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)
We enter into the review with full transparency, which is why we have set it up; it is absolutely crucial. We also recognise the delay, and I reassure the noble Lord that we have extended until 7 September the deadline for any applications for reviews of the tests that members of staff have to do, to give more time. It is so difficult at this time of year—everyone should be celebrating the end of the school year. Of course, key stage 2 is the end of the primary phase for most young people. So, it is a serious issue, and we are treating it with the respect it deserves.
Baroness Andrews (Lab)
My Lords, it is extremely important that the transition between primary and secondary school is as smooth for children and well supported as possible. It is a traumatic time for everybody. If schools have broken up, teachers have no opportunity to support children who have not done particularly well, children with special needs and children with disadvantage. Secondary schools also have less time to consider the provisions they need to make. It is an extremely serious issue, and the Minister is obviously taking it very seriously. Is the review going to look at the options for outsourcing, and even whether there is capacity within the department to take it back in house and do it from the department’s point of view?
Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)
My noble friend is absolutely right: transition is important. Secondary schools do not rely on the SATs results immediately; they are used in a longer-term process. However, on her last point, I reassure her that, following the recent announcement from the Chief Secretary to the Prime Minister, a new public interest test will be applied before renewing expiring government contracts, in order to prioritise long-term value. Everything is on the table. We need to make sure we get the best outcome for those pupils, and for the staff who do such a brilliant job supporting them through all the different stages of their education.
Lord Bew (CB)
My Lords, from 2011 I chaired the Department for Education’s independent review of key stage 2 assessment. We had many good discussions with Pearson during that time, and I am very disappointed by this recent debacle. One of the key things is the breakdown between Pearson and the markers, which seems to be at the heart of this failure. Can the Minister probe this when the investigation occurs? The review I was engaged in wanted to produce the most humane, creative key stage 2 set of tests. It was also motivated by a desire to maintain the UK’s significant position in world educational rankings. Nobody owes this country a living. So, this failure is not just a matter of the disappointment to schools and parents in the last few weeks; Pearson has to be told it has a role to play in maintaining this country’s overall placing in world educational attainment.
Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)
I thank the noble Lord for his timely comments. I reassure him that the delay was about technical issues with uploading the data, rather than the actual marking of the tests themselves. Obviously, all of this will be looked at in great detail. He is absolutely right about the humane aspect. For whatever reasons—I am not sure it was the intention at the beginning—pupils take SATs very seriously. It is a really big deal for year 6 pupils to go through them. We have to make sure there is confidence in the system, and that they can be supported, particularly the most vulnerable children, who can be given an alternative form of assessment if required.
The Earl of Effingham (Con)
My Lords, it is incredibly important to support all businesses, big and small, to enhance economic growth. But in this instance, it is obviously entirely fair and reasonable to ask: what steps are both the Government and Pearson undertaking right now to support teachers who are back at their desks during annual leave, and will Pearson be required to provide full remedial action before the publication of the review?
Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)
I reassure the noble Earl that the department has given extra time. It is very conscious of the fact that teachers are looking forward to going on a break. By the end of the summer term, to be quite honest, most of them are on their knees because of the effort they have put in. I therefore reassure him that we are being sympathetic about that. I do not want to pre-empt the terms of the review. We should let it do its work and analyse the results, and then see what next steps are most appropriate for all concerned.
Lord Watson of Invergowrie (Lab)
My Lords, further to the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Bew, and on the broader question of SATs testing, last week, YouGov published a survey showing that only 7% of primary school leaders wanted to see SATs retained in their present form; the remainder wanted them either to be reformed or to be removed entirely. A large part of the reason why was the stress caused to young people, which has of course been exacerbated by the Pearson fiasco in the last two weeks. So, will my noble friend the Minister agree to listen to the views of those who know young pupils best, and look at revising primary assessment, with a view to finding a fairer and more effective form?
Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)
I always enjoy my conversations with my noble friend, particularly on matters such as this. I have a grandson who has just gone through key stage 2 SATs, and I know from first-hand experience the pressure that is being experienced. Of course, these matters are always under review. There is a special emphasis now on children with SEND to make sure they are properly looked after. We are mindful that the curriculum review looked at this in great detail, and the response was that, in the main, they were fair assessments. But this is obviously a dynamic area, and we will continue to listen to the voice of the experts—in this case, the teachers themselves.
Lord Hampton (CB)
My Lords, I declare my interest as a teacher who has taught Pearson Edexcel at A-level. I will widen the Question a bit. The Government are complaining about Pearson and talking about the delays, but the annual Keeping Children Safe in Education guidance always comes out in the holidays, giving the safeguarding teams no time to get things organised before inset days. A couple of years ago, the Minister, the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, promised that it would come out in term time. Do the Government have any plans for that?
Baroness Blake of Leeds (Lab)
I will take away the noble Lord’s comments, quiz my noble friend the Minister in great depth, and we will reply to him in due course.
Public Office (Accountability) Bill
Thursday 16th July 2026
(3 weeks, 6 days ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Public Office (Accountability) Bill 2024-26 View all Public Office (Accountability) Bill 2024-26 Debates Read Hansard Text Amendment Paper: Consideration of Bill Amendments as at 14 July 2026 - large print - (14 Jul 2026)
Government Record on Education, Employment and Welfare
(3 weeks, 6 days ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Lady Evans of Bowes Park
To move that this House takes note of the Government’s record on education, employment and welfare since July 2024.
Baroness Evans of Bowes Park (Con)
My Lords, I am delighted to open this important debate on the Government’s record on education, employment and welfare, as we reach the end of the Starmer premiership and move to the Burnham one.
Over the past two years, an unfortunate pattern has emerged across the Government’s policies on these issues. Whether intended or not, their interventions have too often served to restrict opportunity rather than broaden it. Opportunity is the foundation of a free, prosperous society and economy. It is what allows a child from any background to succeed in education, a young person to secure their first job and an individual to build an independent life through work. Yet across education, employment and welfare, the Government have appeared increasingly determined to substitute individual aspiration and institutional freedom with central direction and state intervention. The result is not only a larger state—we just have to look at the eye-watering levels of government spending—but a society in which the pathways to fulfilling an individual’s potential are increasingly constrained and, in too many cases, cut off entirely. At a time when Britain faces economic and technological change, that is the wrong direction in which to travel.
I begin with education. The central question for any education system should be simple: are we giving the next generation the greatest possible opportunity to succeed? For much of the past two decades, the academies programme has helped answer that question positively. By giving schools greater freedom over recruitment, curriculum delivery, governance and innovation, academies have been an important driver of the significant improvements in standards and outcomes that have been achieved. Between 2009 and 2022, England rose from 21st to 11th in the PISA league tables for maths, from 25th to 13th for reading, and from 11th to 9th for science. Yet rather than building on this success, the Government in the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Act chose to curtail many of the freedoms that helped enable this progress. The reforms introduced by the Government to academies have represented a shift away from institutional autonomy and back towards central control. Schools now have less freedom to innovate, less flexibility to respond to local circumstances and fewer opportunities to develop distinctive approaches to excellence.
At the same time, concerns have been raised that the proposed curriculum reforms may reduce academic rigour, at precisely the moment when the demands on young people are increasing. This matters because today’s pupils will graduate into a labour market unlike any that we have previously known. AI is transforming entire sectors of the economy. Entry-level roles that once provided a foothold into professional careers are rapidly changing and, in some sectors, starting to disappear altogether. Young people will need stronger skills, higher levels of knowledge and greater resilience than ever before. So, if opportunity is our objective, we should strengthen the institutions that have delivered educational improvement, not restrict them.
It is not just academies that the Government have weakened; they have deliberately undermined the independent sector. Independent schools offer choice and the chance for social mobility through the standard of education they offer and the scholarships and partnerships they provide. Yet because of the Government’s decision to impose VAT—an unprecedented tax on education—four times more students have left independent schools than expected, and a number of schools have had to close entirely, putting unnecessary strain on the state school system. The closest thing we have to a silver bullet in public policy is education, to give children the best chance to realise their potential, so we should back all institutions that broaden their horizons, raise standards and equip young people for the challenges of a rapidly changing world—we should not undermine them.
The same concern around restricting opportunity applies to employment. Britain today faces significant labour market challenges, global economic uncertainty, technological disruption, high energy costs, a high tax burden and changing patterns of work. All these are affecting employers and employees alike. Many of these forces are not within the Government’s control, but the policy response most certainly is. As the curtain is drawn on the current Prime Minister’s and Chancellor’s tenures, their signature policy—and possibly one of the most damaging—has been a £25 billion a year increase in the tax on jobs. Despite warnings of the damage that would be caused, the Government imposed a higher rate and lowered the threshold at which national insurance is levied. Instead of focusing on creating the conditions for job creation, investment, economic dynamism and growth, government action has led to employers facing rising costs and growing regulatory burdens through the Employment Rights Act that increase both the cost and the risk of taking on staff.
The consequences are felt most acutely by those trying to enter the labour market for the first time. In the hospitality sector alone—one of the biggest employers of young people—the 2024 Budget amounted to £3.4 billion of annual tax increases, resulting in 100,000 job losses, falling mostly on those seeking entry level and part-time work. The figures show that more than 1 million young people aged 16 to 24 are now not in education, employment or training—the first time that figure has exceeded 1 million since 2013. Until the pandemic, NEET figures fell to below 10% in 2021 from nearly 17% in 2010. Youth unemployment has increased to 16.2%, equivalent to around 735,000 young people actively seeking work but unable to find it. We know that these are not merely statistics: they represent opportunities lost; young people unable to gain their first experience of work; skills left undeveloped; confidence undermined and ambitions postponed. Indeed, the recent Milburn review warned of a growing risk of a “lost generation”, because when opportunity disappears at the beginning of a career, the effects can last for decades.
There is of course an important role for programmes that support young people into work, particularly if they find that they do not have the skills needed to do the jobs in their area, and the previous Government had such schemes. However, we are now in the slightly surreal situation of the Government offering subsidies of £3,000 to employers to fund jobs for young people to deal with the damaging consequences of the employment taxes they have increased and the regulatory and wage costs they have imposed. That surely cannot be the answer to increasing opportunity across the jobs market.
That brings me, finally, to welfare. A compassionate welfare system is essential. It should provide support during periods of hardship, illness and transition, but at its heart it must be designed to help people move towards independence and participation in the labour market wherever possible. Increasingly, however, we appear to be moving towards a model that places greater emphasis on long-term dependency than on economic mobility. Every day, 1,000 people are signed off on to benefits with no requirements to look for work. Welfare spending is set to hit £370 billion by the end of the Parliament. This is simply unfair. It is unfair to taxpayers—the people going out to work to pay for those who do not—and to the people who are written off and not supported to find a job.
The Work and Pensions Secretary has said that all his colleagues want to talk about is how to raise more tax to spend on welfare. This is not simply fiscally unsustainable; it leads to the gradual erosion of the principle that work provides dignity, purpose and independence. When young people see limited rewards from entering employment and growing financial incentives to remain outside the labour market, the long-term effect is fewer opportunities for advancing and greater dependency on the state. That is neither socially desirable nor economically sustainable.
The Government’s response to the challenges we face in education, employment and welfare has too often been the same: more intervention and regulation, greater centralisation and increased cost. Yet the evidence suggests that lasting opportunity is rarely created by government direction. Opportunity is created when schools are trusted to excel, when businesses are confident enough to invest and hire and when individuals are empowered to build independent lives through work.
The challenge facing Britain today is not merely one of economic growth; it is a question of whether the next generation will enjoy greater opportunities than the last. On education, welfare and employment, the Government should ask themselves one question: are their policies expanding opportunity or restricting it? Unfortunately, too often over the past two years, the answer has appeared to be the latter. If we want to give young people the chance to succeed in an increasingly competitive world, we must reverse that trend. We must trust individuals, institutions, business and enterprise more, and place opportunity, not state control, at the centre of public policy.
I hope that the new Burnham Government will learn the lessons of the past two years and look to change course: to reduce the welfare bill and focus tirelessly on supporting those who can work into employment; to cut taxes on jobs and ensure that businesses can grow their workforces, invest in their futures and thrive again; and to once again trust head teachers to deliver the best education they can for their pupils. I beg to move.
Lord Rooker (Lab)
My Lords, my text for this simplistic opposition attack on the Government is simple: I will point out the legacy of the noble Baroness who has just spoken. She was in the Cabinet for six years. On 20 January 2025, the Economic Affairs Committee of your Lordships’ House produced a 42-paragraph letter to the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions. This followed a short inquiry to understand what was driving the massive change to incentivise benefits and inactivity under the Tories. Time permits me to mention just two paragraphs.
Paragraph 1 read:
“Spending on incapacity and disability benefits has risen by more than 40 per cent in real terms since 2013 … This is around 20 per cent higher than the UK defence budget and equal to 22 per cent of the total health budget. Spending on incapacity and disability benefits is forecast to rise to £100.7 billion … pushing the total welfare bill above £370 billion. The latest figures show that around 3.7 million people of working age receive the health component of Universal Credit … 1.2 million more than in February 2020. As the Office for Budget Responsibility note, since before the COVID pandemic this rise has been uniform across age groups. This is in the context of there being 1.51 million people registered as unemployed”.
In Paragraph 7 of the letter, the committee said:
“While it is difficult to unravel the data to provide a clear picture of the level of economic inactivity, administrative data show that spending on health-related benefits has risen. This has occurred in all parts of the country and in all age groups. As the OBR notes, ‘The proportion of the working-age population in receipt of an incapacity benefit reached a post-financial crisis high of 7.0 per cent in 2023-24 and is forecast to reach an all-time high of 7.9 per cent in 2028-29. This reverses the steady decline in caseload prevalence from the early 2000s to mid-2010s’”,
which was Labour’s time in office. It was a complete reversal of what had been happening under the Labour Government.
My final quote—I want to keep this short—is from an interesting piece by the Financial Times data expert John Burn-Murdoch, “What if the UK isn’t actually the sick man of Europe?”, from 6 December 2024. Time permits me to read only the final paragraph of his piece:
“It turns out the apparent rise in Britain’s illness-related inactivity is mostly not about deteriorating health, but about incentives within the benefit system”—
incentives that were put there by the Government in which the noble Baroness served in the Cabinet for six years. To finish the quote:
“Policies focused on the latter stand the best chance of getting Britons working”.
In other words, it is an absolute con. There was good progress under the Labour Government until 2010, and after that it reversed. We on the Economic Affairs Committee could not understand it. We thought we had got rid of the system whereby it paid not to work. Everybody around the table was gobsmacked, yet it had been made possible to be better off not working under the Tory Government of which the noble Baroness was a key member.
Lord Mohammed of Tinsley (LD)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Evans, for securing this important debate. I looked at the list of speakers and thought this was going to be a fantastic debate about our children’s future. I do not want it to be about how bad one side or the other was, because that will not help any young person. I have always been passionate about young people—I will return to that—and I will always fight for them. I did it before I arrived in your Lordships’ House and I do it now. Earlier this month I spoke about helping young people gain work experience in your Lordships’ House by coming in to assist us. This week, a fantastic A-level student from north London, Oliwia Pietrusa, helped me draft my speech and did some of the research for it.
A lot of speakers will follow me, so I will restrict my speech to two bits: NEETs—young people not in employment, education or training—and primary schools. As we have seen from the recent Milburn review, young people are being devastated by the side-effects of a lack of government intervention. Research by the House of Lords Library showed recently that 1.012 million young people aged 16 to 24 are not in employment, education or training. As the noble Baroness, Lady Evans, reminded us, Alan Milburn warned of a rising “lost generation”. The real issue now is about the system. Is it obsessed by ticking boxes? Are we just pushing our young people to chase qualifications but not finding destinations for them, by which I mean long-term, secure jobs? We are missing a proper participation system that guides our teenagers from the classroom into a career.
We also need to support schools that are struggling, which brings me on to the issue of the Government’s target of recruiting 6,500 new teachers. In my opinion, that completely ignores the challenges of primary schools. There has been a massive drop in primary school trainees. I am worried that falling rolls in primary schools are putting pressure on teacher recruitment and that the drop in primary school pupils will make its way through to secondary schools. There is a challenge there. We can see that happening here in London in particular, where places such as Lambeth and Hackney are now seeing pressures in schools. In open evidence to the Public Services Committee, we heard from one head teacher who said his school was closing.
So there is a real issue around how the Government looks at the funding formula, because it is based on pupil numbers rather than the actual cost of running schools. It is a huge issue, and not just a London-based one; it also affects rural and coastal communities. We are not going to be able to build a strong economy if our school system is hollowed out.
I have some questions for the Minister. We know from Milburn and House of Lords Library research that over 1 million young people are NEET now, and we are going to get Milburn’s recommendations. First, can the Minister confirm that the Government will fully fund all the recommendations from the Milburn review? Secondly, what will they do about tackling the drop-off in primary school teacher trainees? As I said, if we do not fix this problem now, it will follow through. Both Milburn and the fantastic work that the noble Baroness, Lady Morris, has done on tackling the issues around white working-class boys not achieving their potential identified that these issues start at a very young age. Finally, as I am running out of time, can the Minister please comment on the funding formula, which is causing huge issues for our primary school children and schools?
The Lord Bishop of Newcastle
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Evans of Bowes Park, for bringing this debate today, and it is an honour to follow the noble Lord, Lord Mohammed of Tinsley.
I want to focus my comments on opportunity and social mobility. In assessing the Government’s record on education, employment and welfare since July 2024, we cannot ignore the growing loss of humanities provision across higher education. Universities are autonomous institutions, but their decisions are shaped by the wider financial and policy environment.
A successful education system is measured not simply by qualifications or apprenticeships but by the breadth of opportunity it offers. The Social Mobility Commission’s State of the Nation 2024 reminds us that opportunity remains profoundly shaped by geography. When courses disappear from universities across whole regions, it is often students without the financial means to relocate who lose more opportunities first. Those from more affluent backgrounds can frequently move elsewhere or absorb the additional costs of studying further from home; those from less advantaged backgrounds often cannot. As a result, talent is constrained not by ability but by circumstance.
Social mobility depends not only on opening doors but on ensuring that those doors exist in every part of the country. If whole disciplines become concentrated in a handful of institutions or regions, educational choice increasingly becomes a privilege rather than a right. That risks reinforcing existing inequalities and undermining the Government’s stated ambition to widen opportunity and spread growth beyond our major cities.
On employment, these cuts affect lecturers, researchers, librarians and professional staff, whose expertise underpins teaching, innovation and the wider economy. Humanities graduates go on to become teachers, civil servants, diplomats, lawyers, journalists and leaders in our creative industries. They also develop the critical thinking, and communication and analytical skills, that employers consistently value across many sectors. Weakening that pipeline weakens the nation.
These concerns have been brought home to me through a friend and colleague at the University of Exeter, who has described the uncertainty surrounding proposed reductions in humanities posts. Sadly, Exeter is not alone. Similar pressures are being felt across the sector, with consequences for staff, students and local communities alike.
If we are serious about improving social mobility, we cannot allow educational opportunity to become narrower or more geographically uneven. A country that values aspiration must ensure that students, wherever they live and whatever their background, continue to have full access to the breadth of higher education. Social mobility is not simply about helping individuals to succeed; it is about ensuring that every community can retain and develop its talent, and that no young person’s ambitions are limited by where they happen to grow up.
I therefore ask the Minister: what steps will the Government take to ensure that our universities remain financially sustainable, that students continue to enjoy a broad range of subjects, and that the vital contribution of the humanities to our economy, our public services and our national life is not lost?
Baroness Shephard of Northwold (Con)
My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend Lady Evans on her excellent introduction to this important debate, and it is a pleasure to follow the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Newcastle.
I will concentrate on NEETs: that is, young people who leave school without entering sixth form or FE, employment or training. They are at the centre of Alan Milburn’s interim report on Young People and Work, which reveals very bleak prospects for NEETs. There are nearly a million of these young people—that is, one in eight of our school leavers—and the numbers are rising. Nearly 60% of them are economically inactive, which means they are detached from the labour market and not looking for work. The Milburn report describes this as a “moral crisis” with “economic consequences”. The economic consequences are that the annual cost to the taxpayer for the present numbers is £125 billion. All other EU countries, apart from Romania, are doing better than us on this issue, and, alarmingly, over the past decade, the number of NEETs citing health problems has risen by 70%, four out of 10 citing mental health problems.
I accept that the position has developed under successive Governments. We now have the aftermath of Covid, war, and a volatile world. We need economic growth. I can do no better than quote the noble Lord, Lord Walker of Broxton—I think he is not in his place today—who said in the welfare debate on 11 June that
“we will cure the problem”
of NEETs
“only by growing the economy … the Government need to be more business friendly. It is only business that creates wealth and jobs and pays tax”.—[Official Report, 11/6/26; col. 1443.]
He is of course right. Employers are key players for NEETs. They provide entry and part-time jobs in retail, hospitality and hairdressing. How many people here started off in that way? I certainly did. They also support apprenticeships. However, those functions, for which we depend on business, have been made well-nigh impossible for many employers by the Government’s imposition on them of higher national insurance costs—which have already been mentioned—increases in the national minimum wage, higher business rates and heavier regulation.
In the past, local government also was a key partner in helping to equip school leavers for the world of work. But, sadly, the Government are creating yet another barrier to the improvement of NEETs’ prospects by the chaos they are currently imposing on that sector, with uncertainty, delay and confusion surrounding its structure and its functions. Nor can there now be any sensible planning because we are told that the new Prime Minister is intent on creating a new regionalised structure on top of, or maybe instead of—we are currently not to know—the structures that we have, which means that any kind of sensible planning that is taking place will be ended by the uncertainty that the Government are imposing on the entire thing. However, of course time does not stop for the NEETs. They need urgent help to get on with their lives.
The Minister in the last debate on 11 June outlined a number of measures to be useful, and indeed many of them were. But, actually, the Government need not to introduce limited measures but to tackle the fundamental issues I have described. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response at the end of the debate.
Lord Baker of Dorking (Con)
My Lords, the level of youth unemployment in England today is 16.2%. So many youngsters are leaving school at 18 without any employability skills, and that is a disgrace for the fifth-richest country in the world. It is also an indictment of the failure of the education policy of Conservative and Labour Governments since the year 2000, because they have created 1 million people now between 16 and 24 who are unemployed, which is an absolutely shaming figure.
The colleges that I have been trying to stimulate over the last 15 years, university technical colleges, have an unemployment rate of lower than 3%: 20% of our students become apprentices, 50% go to universities to study STEM subjects, and the rest get jobs locally because they have worked with local employers for four years. That is what is needed.
We need a revolution in education. I think that it will be introduced by our new Prime Minister, Andy Burnham, when he is appointed on Monday. He has made many speeches on the importance of technical, practical and vocational education. No Prime Minister since Thatcher, from John Major to Keir Starmer, has made any speech on technical and practical education and learning by hand. No Prime Minister has done it. Search as you will, you will not find them. I think that Andy Burnham will introduce significant changes. About two years ago, he made a statement in Manchester that he wanted to scrap the EBacc, which has an academic curriculum, and replace it with the MBacc. Since then, my charity and organisation of UTCs have been working with him to find a way through.
We have found one. The answer is to look at the curriculum of all secondary schools, particularly Church schools and bog-standard comprehensives, and make sure that you can insert into them good technical education. You can do so only by inserting a sleeve of education from 14 to 18. That is what Andy Burnham asked us to provide him with over the last two years. A school in Manchester will open next September with a sleeve and one will open this September in Barrow-in-Furness. That is the headquarters of BAE Systems, which cannot recruit students who are talented and committed from the schools in Cumbria. Some 120 students will join that school in September. Of those, 90 have already selected the technical sleeve and 30 have selected the academic sleeve. I think the Prime Minister will try to repeat that pattern substantially over the country. We should welcome this. That is the only way that we will get economic growth. It is the only way that we will be able to reduce youth unemployment significantly. We are going to face a revolution, which I very much welcome.
At times in our country, you need to make great changes. I was lucky in the 1980s, when great changes were necessary. I think Andy Burnham will be lucky, because there are now great changes that have to be made. I am not just talking about young men; in our colleges, we have many young women, particularly from ethnic minorities, who desperately want to study and master engineering and computing. I am very optimistic.
I add one warming word for the Minister. She is the only Minister in the Government, including the Commons, who understands education deeply. She is deep into it. If there is any justice, she should be the new Secretary of State. I do not think that the new Prime Minister will appoint a Secretary of State from this House, but I hope that we do not lose her. She likes UTCs. She went to one only last week—one of the most difficult ones to reach, up in the north-west of England next to Sellafield. I hope very much that she keeps her job, because she does like UTCs.
Baroness O'Grady of Upper Holloway (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Evans, for introducing this debate. It is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Baker, who always has important and interesting things to say about vocational training—and, it seems, about ministerial appointments.
I am very proud that this Government’s mission is to reindustrialise Britain, make work pay and lift living standards. There has been real progress. The UK is now the fastest-growing economy in the G7. Better job security and higher wages through stronger employment rights incentivise workers and reduce turnover costs for business. NHS waiting lists are falling, delivering a healthier workforce. That benefits business too. The Resolution Foundation reports that this year the lowest-income half of families in Britain will see a significant improvement in their standard of living. Let us remember that the single greatest contribution to social mobility in this country has been this Government scrapping the two-child benefit limit, lifting half a million children out of poverty. That is the kind of schooling that I am interested in, because it will transform not only their lives but the lives of their families and communities.
To generate fair growth, we must tackle Britain’s record of low investment and poor productivity. Government action to accelerate clean energy production shows what can be achieved. The CBI reports that the net-zero sector now supports over 1 million jobs and over 23,000 firms whose productivity is 48% above the national average. We need to see that success across sectors, to fund decent welfare and education and to deliver the good, skilled jobs that the British people demand.
That brings me to a new report by University College London for the ETUC which was published last month. For two decades, the debate about economic competitiveness has been framed around the diagnosis that labour costs are too high, which in turn requires pay restraint and deregulation. This new report draws on a 25-year firm-level analysis of Europe’s 300 largest publicly listed corporations and provides evidence that that diagnosis is wrong. What is holding back growth is not the cost of labour but the misdirection of capital. Profits have been increasingly diverted away from productive investment into shareholder payouts, debt-funded distributions and financial reserves.
The report recommends making government business support conditional not only on decent labour standards but on meeting reinvestment requirements. It also highlights the importance of corporate governance reform. This is vital to address the British sickness of short-termism, which puts shareholder returns above the long-term interests of the company. Does my noble friend the Minister agree with the diagnosis that Britain needs more value creation and more productive investment? Does she agree that we need more government action, including on procurement power and corporate governance rules, to drive it?
Baroness Bottomley of Nettlestone (Con)
My Lords, I also most warmly congratulate my noble friend on a brilliant speech in which she said all that needed to be said. Many of us will repeat the same message, but that is what you do in church—as the right reverend Prelate will understand—and you learn the message in the end, so I hope that I will be forgiven for doing so.
Education, employment and welfare cannot be judged in isolation. Together they determine whether people can build secure and independent lives. Much of what the Government want to happen is commendable, but too much of what has actually happened is deplorable. Mission is not the point. I have always had a great regard for the noble Baroness who just spoke, but lifting the two-child limit is not the point. This Government are so good at doing easy things. They do not seem to have any stomach or courage to introduce unpopular measures, yet most of us know that to achieve success you have to do difficult things. I had to shut hospitals. The noble Lord, Lord Heseltine, had to shut mines. If you want progress, you have to do extremely tough things. This Government too often play to the gallery and are not prepared or do not have the courage to tackle what must happen.
I will say a bit about teachers and lecturers, who provide such a vital service. It again shows commitment that 4,000 of the promised 6,500 additional teachers have been delivered, but the real problem is retention. How can we make teaching a more worthwhile activity? I have just returned from the University of Hull, where I received an honorary degree, I am delighted to say. Mine was a long service award for 17 years as chancellor, and I was being given it alongside the most distinguished noble Lord, Lord Norton, who has done decades of proper service at the university. But the ceremony was a teacher graduation, and I was so impressed by the dedication, professionalism, commitment and, above all, the support the university can offer teachers in the region the moment they get burnout. When they get depressed, demoralised and have compassion fatigue, they can provide mentors, networks and further training. I commend that example.
Much has been made of this appalling figure of 1 million young people not in education, employment or training. Those who do not study history are destined to repeat it. Many of us came into public life at the time of the race riots and terrible unrest, when young people, then Black people, had no work, no self-esteem, no recognition and no respect. That leads to crime, lawlessness and despair. The urgency of the practical steps needed to lift this generation forward cannot be exaggerated.
I commend my noble friend Lord Baker. I visited his UTC in Hull, the Baker Dearing UTC, and it is extraordinary to see the way it works with employers and the university to deliver results. At a time when there is disenchantment with university—my noble friend Lord Willetts will no doubt address this problem—more and more young people want skills, a vocation and a job. It is extraordinary how many have said, “I don’t think university is for me”. So we have to look even more urgently at technical and other education.
I support those who argue for greater regionalism. I have long been a great admirer of the noble Lord, Lord O’Neill of Gatley, whom I very much hope will be a leading light in the new Burnham Government. He argues that skills should be completely devolved, because Whitehall cannot know what each labour market needs. He makes a powerful case for joining health, welfare and employment. I very much hope that, in the same way as Andy Street did in Birmingham and as happened in Manchester, we have a better result with more regionalism, innovation and opportunity. The critical test is in delivering a complex achievable plan. Let us bring an end to government by press notices.
Lord Knight of Weymouth (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Evans, for introducing this debate at a time when over 1 million young people are NEET.
In 2009, I was appointed Employment Minister in the teeth of the global financial crisis. The Prime Minister was clear: my job was to prevent the scarring effect of long-term youth unemployment and to get the headline rate to fall in time for the 2010 general election. When I told the then Permanent Secretary at the DWP that this was my task, he told me that to do so would defy history and was impossible. He was wrong. We rapidly rolled out the future jobs fund to give young people who had been on benefits for more than six months real paid work, rather than a life on benefits. It created some 150,000 jobs, and the department’s later evaluation found participants far more likely to be in unsubsidised employment two years on, and a net benefit to society of around £7,750 for every young person who took part. With determined focus, we can tackle impossible problems.
The future jobs fund was, of course, scrapped by the incoming Government in 2010 before they published the evidence that it had succeeded. This Government inherited 872,000 young people—more than one in eight—who are NEET. The number is rising much faster today. The Milburn review tells us that the cost of NEETs is £125 billion a year, which is more than our entire schools budget.
The attainment gap between poorer children and their peers stood as wide as it did three decades ago, and a generation’s mental health was left to fray: close to 1 million children were referred to mental health services in a single year, yet fewer than a third were seen. Tens of thousands were waiting over two years, many reaching crisis before anyone had reached them. Apprenticeship starts for young people fell by more than 40%. The entry-level rungs of the ladder were pulled away for over a decade, and artificial intelligence is now removing the very junior roles that are a way in. This is not a blip. It is not about NI and the minimum wage; it is structural and it was many years in the making. We should all hold our hands up.
This crisis begins in our schools. We need a curriculum that develops and challenges all young people. I am with the noble Lord, Lord Baker: I would love us to end the national curriculum at 14 and build a single 14-19 phase with genuine academic, technical and applied routes; and a space for local content, designed with employers, that fits with local industrial strategies. What the Minister is achieving post 16 is important, but it needs a better experience in key stage 4.
We must also change school behaviour by introducing accountability measures built on destinations—on whether a school actually lowers a child’s risk of becoming NEET, as suggested in the Milburn report. When we reward only exam results, we should not be surprised when the system loses sight of the child.
Behind the headline figure of 1 million are 1 million lives. These young people have not given up on work or on learning. They have not given up on the hope of a better life. The only question that should trouble this House is whether we have given up on them. In 2009, we did not. Let us resolve that we will not now—that we will stop building exam factories and start, once more, to build hope.
Lord Willetts (Con)
My Lords, I too congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Evans, on calling this debate. One can sense in the interventions from all sides of the House the deep disappointment and frustration that we now—once again, shockingly—have 1 million young people who are NEET. It is particularly frustrating, as tackling the problem is not a deeply mysterious intractable issue that cannot possibly be addressed; it is absolutely solvable. The noble Baroness, Lady Evans, set out in her excellent speech the wider policies that are necessary to bring down the number of NEETs. I will focus on specific policies aimed at those young people who, tragically, are already NEET or may be about to become so.
The evidence from a range of initiatives under successive Governments, including those going back to the 1980s and 1990s, is that some combination of the following is needed: direct support for building up employability skills, so that employers do not think that it is high risk to take on someone who is NEET or about to be NEET; plus some lowering of the costs to employers of taking them on, either through a general reduction or specific incentives and rewards. There have been lots of initiatives over the decades. They work, but the trouble is they cost money, partly because there is a dead-weight cost. Some young people get off benefits and into work anyway and the Treasury does not like expensive schemes, so to win the argument for more of these programmes they have to be as well targeted as possible.
There is an increasing amount of data across Whitehall now—from the NHS about family circumstances, from the Department for Education itself and from other government bodies—that would enable us to identify young people who are at greatest risk of being NEET for whom interventions would be most effective. However, across Whitehall you hear, “GDPR stops us sharing the data”. The data is not brought together and those 16 and 17 year-olds are tragically lost to the system.
There is an initiative, Kickstarter, that tries to break down data barriers to pooling information across Whitehall. The Department for Education participates in this initiative and its programme typically, and admirably, is about early years. It identifies children at the age of two and a half who are at risk of turning up at school, at five, underprepared. Why does the Department for Education not also run a Kickstarter initiative to identify NEETs by pooling data from across Whitehall, so that policies and programmes to help young people into work are effectively targeted and more affordable?
It is just possible that these programmes will still have a cost, so we need to find a means of financing them. It is striking that the triple lock on pensions is now costing £12.6 billion a year extra in benefit expenditure than if the pension had simply been linked to earnings since 2012 when the triple lock was introduced. So, if, as well as effective use of public spending through linking data, further resource is needed, I suggest that pension expenditure, which is the most rapidly rising and most expensive part of the total welfare budget, should be where savings are found to tackle the problem to which all sides of the House are clearly committed.
Baroness Coffey (Con)
My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend on introducing this debate so well. I am conscious that a lot of statistics have been thrown around. I was genuinely surprised to hear the figures given by the noble Lords, Lord Rooker and Lord Knight, and I am curious as to where they got them from, because they are not what the ONS says. The ONS says that in 2001, seasonally adjusted, which is the preferred figure being used, there were 833,000 NEETs. By March 2010, that figure was 1.128 million. In June, it was 1.074 million. When the Conservatives left office in May 2024, it was 935,000, and by that June it was 921,000. We have seen a disaster in what is going on, a lot of which is due to the policy, sadly, put in place by this Government, thinking that it would do more to help jobs, which has in fact killed off growth and jobs.
Let us give them some credit: there are more people working now than before. That is true, and I am not surprised, given the rise in population. I support most of the changes that have been made to the apprenticeship schemes and the apprenticeship levy. I welcome the fact that a lot has been moved out of education, which showed no interest in young people and what they would do in the future once they had left school, and is now with the DWP. That has been a good move. But let us not shy away from this: unemployment is up and NEETs are up.
We need drive. I was very proud of my record at the DWP during Covid. Working with my noble friend Lady Stedman-Scott, we got the unemployment rate down to a record low since 1974. We had the lowest figures on NEETs and youth unemployment. That was not done by accident; it was done by drive and making sure that different parts of government worked together and were working in the areas. That is why we tried to enhance our working with not only mayors but also councils through our Jobcentre Plus network.
Universal credit was designed to make it so that you would be better off in work than not working. It was always estimated by Sir Iain Duncan Smith that it would cost taxpayers more, because it wrapped six benefits into one. But the underlying principle was that you are better off working than not, and that was still true until recently. What has happened recently is that, thankfully, we got rid of tax credits. I understand the incentive there. The thinking was that we would subsidise low pay through tax credits. I do not think that was the right approach, but I understand why it happened. But the way that was designed meant that, if you worked a minute over 16 hours, you would be worse off. So, big employers redesigned their work systems so that people basically had 16-hour contracts, and it has been difficult to shift that.
UC allowed the opportunity to do so, but the reason why it is now more of a challenge is that we have a quarter of a million families with a household income of over £40,000 who will now get free school meals. There are a number of incentives not to come off benefits and a huge number of incentives not to go full-time. There are definitely still challenges, which I appreciate the Government will continue to try to tackle, in the availability of childcare all year round, not just when schools are sitting.
We will debate PIP next week, so I will not devote much time to that. All I will say is that, with the cost of living challenges, a lot more people started applying for benefits who did not do so before.
To go back to the beginning and education, we can see the difference that happened in the United Kingdom. When the Conservatives came in, working in partnership in the coalition, there was a big drive by my noble friend Lord Gove and Nick Gibb on phonics—getting into the foundations and the basics. When I first visited schools, I was astonished to find that the poorest-performing school in my constituency offered 50 GCSEs, and it wondered why it was struggling. Let us get back to the core of what will give a young person the opportunity to grow and contribute to our great country.
Lord Frost (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Evans, for securing this debate and for her excellent opening speech. Britain’s economic problems did not begin with this Government. That would be an unjust accusation. I am afraid Governments of all parties have laboured diligently over many years to produce today’s situation.
The fundamentals can be summarised in one simple set of figures. Since 2008, productivity growth has consistently fallen back. The ONS tells us that, before the financial crisis, multi-factor productivity grew at nearly 2% annually. It is now growing at about 0.5% or less and has recently stagnated. In 2025, per capita GDP was lower than in 2022.
No party in government over this period can regard this record with satisfaction. All three—that includes the Liberal Democrats, of course—to varying degrees regulated, taxed, subsidised and drove energy costs up and industry out. Then came Covid, Ukraine and inflation; each inflicted genuine damage but also provided Whitehall with that most renewable of resources: a convenient explanation to hide bad policy.
Now, there is perhaps a glimmer of something better. Maybe artificial intelligence will finally raise output per worker. Indeed, the ONS’s experimental measure on productivity suggests that it has risen by 4.2% since 2019, rather than 2.3% under the old measure. So, perhaps something is going on.
But at precisely this delicate moment, the Government have chosen to test whether a green shoot can survive being repeatedly struck with a Treasury shovel. The tax burden is forecast to rise to 38.5% by the end of this decade—the highest since records began. The Government are planning to spend nearly half of all the money in the country. The reforms to education brought in by the noble Lord, Lord Gove, have been reversed, and we know from Wales and Scotland what the result of that is likely to be. As we have heard, the Employment Rights Act has undone one of this country’s few remaining strengths—our flexible labour market. Unemployment is at its highest level for a decade. Youth unemployment is even worse.
Net zero is compounding the problem, zeroing one industry after another. Denby Pottery, in my own home region of Derbyshire, survived the Napoleonic Wars, two World Wars, the early 1980s recession and the pandemic but could not survive Ed Miliband.
Of the terrors yet in prospect under Andy Burnham, we are currently left to guess, since he refuses to face any parliamentary scrutiny until September. We know, though, because he told that pillar of our constitution, Gary Lineker, a day or two ago, that he is going to
“ask for a little more”.
It may be a wealth tax or maybe a land value tax. Certainly, we will get municipal corporatism on a grand scale.
I am at a loss to know what question to ask the Minister today. After all, she comes to your Lordships’ Chamber without, I suspect, knowing what is going to come next, so that she can tell us anything about it. Yet she has to defend, as a programme for growth, an economic record of higher taxes, higher spending, riskier and more expensive jobs, a return to union-dominated schools and among the most expensive energy in the OECD.
We know that Ministers want prosperity—of course they do—but the problem is they do not know how to get it. Maybe they have got lucky. After nearly 20 years of stagnation, maybe they just might have been handed the first genuine prospect of a positive productivity shock in a generation. But the problem is that their instinct, faced with something that might at last grow of its own accord, is to reach for weedkiller and try to convince us that it is really fertiliser—a persuasive effort that I suggest is most accurately described as a different kind of fertiliser altogether.
Lord Sharpe of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lady Evans for securing this debate and it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Frost. The Government’s stewardship of the economy over the past two years has been little short of catastrophic for our labour market. When the Government took office two years ago, they inherited a labour market that had recovered from the pandemic, although it still bore some of its scars, and what did they do? As my noble friend Lady Evans so powerfully explained, they immediately taxed employers for the act of hiring. Unsurprisingly, as we have heard, unemployment has risen rapidly ever since and now stands at just under 2 million, with over 1 million young people unemployed.
If business had not had enough already, the Government then introduced their business-busting Employment Rights Act, which their own impact assessment forecasts will cost employers at least £5 billion a year, with smaller businesses bearing much of the burden of course, further harming the prospects of the very people the Government claim to champion. Noble Lords opposite usually mischaracterise our arguments against the most damaging aspects of this Act as that we are somehow against workers’ rights. This is absolutely not the case. The simple fact is that the most fundamental right is to have access to a job in the first place. The argument we advance is that extending rights to the moment a worker enters the building for the first time, removing the flexibility that suited both employer and worker, and making employment unaffordable leads inexorably to the fact that too many aspirant workers do not even get a day one, never mind the rights that attach.
What has been the Government’s response to the unemployment that they have created? It is a youth jobs guarantee, under which they now propose to pay employers to hire the young people those employers can no longer afford to take on because the Government put up employers’ national insurance in the first place. You genuinely could not make it up. My noble friend Lady Evans rightly called it surreal; I think she was too polite.
Throughout this period, we have had nothing but confirmation of what Pat McFadden admitted in private: that in the Labour Party, every conversation is about who we can tax in order to pay benefits to others. That is precisely what has happened, with the benefits bill rising and rising, and disincentives to work multiplying with it. It became so serious that the Chancellor was forced to concede before the Treasury Committee in March that her jobs tax is responsible for the rise in youth unemployment—perhaps timed with an eye to saving her own job, which looks like another fail.
There was a rare moment of humility last week. The other place passed a Motion regretting the combination of the rise in employers’ national insurance, the impact of the Employment Rights Act 2025 and the regulations that make it harder for young people to get their first job. We now look to Mr Burnham to reverse the failed policies of the past two years, although nothing in his conduct so far gives us confidence that he will. Perhaps the Minister can tell us exactly what Mr Burnham thinks of the Government’s employment-related policies so far.
In the previous century, not a single Labour Government left office with unemployment lower than when they arrived. Every other Labour Government since, including the last two, have left with it higher. Unless the Government radically change course under their new Prime Minister, that unbroken and unenviable record looks set to continue.
Baroness Stedman-Scott (Con)
My Lords, I have been reflecting on why the lifelong learning commitment matters: the world of work has changed and continues to do so. People will need new skills throughout their working lives. We need to help people get into and, just as importantly, stay in work as jobs and industries evolve. So I share the Minister’s ambition, but there is a simple question we have to ask, and forgive me for putting it plainly: what is the point of helping people gain new skills if there are no jobs for them to move into?
If 32 years of helping people get and keep a job has taught me anything, it is this: opportunity depends on business being willing to hire. What do we see? Unemployment rising, vacancies falling and a diagnosis that the labour market is not at all well. A job needs two things: someone who is ready and willing to work, and an employer who is ready and willing to hire them. Too often, the Government talk about the first and forget the second. For a business employing somebody full-time on the national living wage, employer national insurance costs have risen by around 68% over the past two years. At the same time, the cost of employing a full-time 20 year-old has risen by around 26% since 2024. When it becomes more expensive to employ people, businesses hire less, opportunities become scarcer and more people end up relying on welfare instead of wages. My noble friend Lady Coffey put it very well: there are too many incentives to stay on benefits rather than get off them.
We have all had a briefing from UKHospitality. It says that UK hospitality is a barometer for the health of the UK economy. When the sector suffers, high streets, businesses and, most importantly, people suffer. As already referenced by my noble friend Lady Evans of Bowes Park, £3.4 billion of tax increases were put on business in 2024 and as a result 100,000 jobs were lost. Some 38.7% of the workforce in the hospitality sector aged between 16 to 24 has been lost—their first job denied to them. The hospitality sector represents 10% of jobs in coastal communities, 50% of local employment comes from it and there has been a 25% drop in summer jobs.
I found it extraordinary that Stephen Timms recently said that the current size of the welfare bill is not a matter of great concern. Can you believe it? Does the Minister agree with that statement? I believe that a growing welfare bill should concern every one of us and so should rising unemployment. I urge the Minister to speak to her colleagues in the DWP about what can be done to make it easier and more cost effective to hire the people who we are in business to serve. I congratulate my noble friend Lady Evans on getting this debate. I commend the contribution by my noble friend Lord Sharpe and will just say in all honesty and with genuine commitment that we have a few ideas for how that position could be improved.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)
My Lords, I welcome this opportunity to take stock of what I am sure the Minister will demonstrate is a pretty positive record. I will focus on social security—called “welfare” in the Motion—but first I shall mention the education reforms that have contributed to the child poverty strategy by reducing the costs of education: action on school uniforms, free breakfasts and free school meals. On the last, I will quote Davina, a member of the Child Poverty Action Group’s youth panel, on why they matter so much:
“It’s not just about food, it’s about dignity, equality and belonging. Hunger makes you tired, embarrassed and left out. A hot meal gives you the energy to focus and the confidence to feel like you belong in the room”.
The Government can take pride in a number of measures on social security, including the modest real increase in the real value of universal credit, the fair repayment rate that reduces the overall level of UC deductions and, most significantly, the abolition of what the noble Lord, Lord Freud, described as the “vicious” two-child limit. A self-described mother in a hard-working family of five writes that,
“it feels like a heavy weight has been lifted off our shoulders; we can finally breathe”,
after the “devastating financial impact” of the limit.
Of course I was not happy about the cuts, but at least the worst of them was averted by the establishment of the Timms PIP review, which was co-produced with disabled people. This is such a positive initiative, as has been the ongoing engagement of the child poverty strategy with parents and children experiencing poverty. I very much hope the Government will build on such initiatives in their policy-making.
The Timms review’s excellent interim report pulls no punches in its critique, including of the dehumanising treatment of those claiming PIP, which raises wider questions about the need for a culture of dignity and respect in the social security system. The report also questions the false narrative of a ballooning overall working-age benefits budget. One consequence of cuts by the Conservative-led Governments has been a significant reduction in the real value of benefits, according to the child poverty strategy documents.
The strategy makes it clear that social security plays a vital role in reducing child poverty, critical to the goals both of security and opportunity, a point also emphasised by charities in the field and by academic and think-tank analysis. Far from restricting opportunity, as the noble Baroness, Lady Evans, said, the child poverty strategy is increasing opportunity for children with experience of poverty. So, wearing my Olivia Twist hat, I hope that serious thought will be given to further action, in particular on the benefit cap, the frozen local housing allowance and the adequacy of UC in meeting need.
The End Child Poverty coalition speaks for many charities when it says that we
“must shift from viewing social security as a sign of failure towards viewing it as an essential investment in children and families”.
According to research by Turn2us, a more positive political narrative could increase public trust in the social security system. I urge the Government not to listen to the siren voices of those baying for cuts but instead to defend social security robustly as, to quote Minister Johnson,
“the bedrock of our welfare state”.—[Official Report, Commons, 30/6/26; col. 875.]
Lord Leigh of Hurley (Con)
My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend Lady Evans on securing this debate and on her excellent opener. We are at an end-of-term moment, not least because the PM who promised us economic growth in his manifesto has clearly failed and, somewhat extraordinarily, the Labour Party has not found one MP in its ranks who put himself or herself up for the job. The mess we find ourselves in as a nation is due largely to actions and words from the current Government.
The Minister should not underestimate the huge damage done in the early days of this Government, when we were misled about a £22 billion black hole—yes, misled. Not one credible economist supported that contention—
Lord Leigh of Hurley (Con)
I would welcome an intervention from anyone who can claim that there was such an economist who did support the contention. There is none.
The negativity that ensued was disastrous. I understand the tactics, perhaps emulating George Osborne, but the response was to break a manifesto commitment and increase taxes, which killed any chance of economic recovery and, of course, jobs growth. It was not just the retrospective taxation, such as the IHT on pensions, but the NI increases which sent the economy and youth unemployment into a tailspin. I put down amendments to exempt charities, care homes or even hospices. The CEO of a hospice, no Tory supporter, told me that she would have to cut jobs as a direct result, and consequently people would die in greater pain and agony than need be the case. I am not sure that Labour were proud of that, because it was unnecessary.
Even worse, the increase in NI has failed. We were told that it was going to raise £25 billion a year, but the OBR figures reveal that it will be nearer £16.6 billion. I am happy to be accused of being a siren voice, as the noble Baroness, Lady Lister, referred to, but all the Prime Minister and the Chancellor had to do was to stand up to their own colleagues and bring welfare back to a reasonable level, and that would have been avoided. They will now pay the price.
Unfortunately, as a result, the cost of employing an 18 to 20 year-old rose by £4,095 between 2024 and 2026. As the former Labour Education Secretary Ruth Kelly put it:
“You cannot put up the cost of hiring young people and then wonder why fewer of them are being hired”.
Then the Employment Rights Act, mentioned earlier and dubbed the unemployment rights Act by many, has not just forced employers to reconsider hiring new staff; it is forcing businesses to find ways to lay off staff and automate much faster than they had planned. I have spoken to manufacturers, whose names I can reveal, that have done that. That cannot be what HM Government expected to see.
Unemployment for over-16s is now at 4.9%. Inactivity rates are at 21%, according to the excellent Jobs Foundation’s recent report. This week alone, the Entrepreneurs Network, which runs the APPG for Entrepreneurship, of which I am an officer, published its fourth survey: 79% of founders of businesses feel that the Government do not understand their needs. Only 18% are optimistic about the year ahead for the economy as a whole and, most interestingly, 82% have a negative view of the level of taxation in the UK. That is the point.
It is not surprising when one reads the Policy Exchange study published this month, which points out that the tax burden is at a 70-year high and that the UK’s tax take of 34.4% of GDP in 2024 has risen to 36% this year. That is way higher than for any other successful members of the G7. This situation will not be improved by the incoming PM, a man with very little economic experience, talking about land taxes and wealth taxes increasing. The question I have for the Minister is: does she understand the connection between increasing the tax take, specifically on businesses, and the consequential, inevitable rise in unemployment?
Baroness Fall (Con)
I congratulate my noble friend Lady Evans on this timely debate and on her excellent remarks. It is always a pleasure, too, to follow my noble friend Lord Leigh.
The first duty of government is the national security, including economic security, of our country. By that, I mean delivering a functioning economy which creates jobs, underpins our national services and provides a safety net of welfare. It also means living within our means and protecting the right for future generations to do so. Education, employment and welfare are the topics of this timely and well-chosen debate, and key to all of this is growth. Today, I will focus my short remarks on employment and welfare.
The legacy of the last two years of the Labour Government has seen unemployment up, hirings down, a welfare bill through the roof and growth flatlining. The OBR’s latest Fiscal Risks and Sustainability report made for sombre reading by pointing out: first, that the fiscal problem is mainly spending-led and will likely worsen with the pressures of an ageing population; and, secondly, that debt is rising to unsustainable levels and the tax burden is already close to historic highs. On the eve of a new Prime Minister, I have a plea for Mr Burnham: we simply cannot afford more poor policy which will only make our country worse off and less able to deliver good schools and good jobs and support those who cannot support themselves.
What is Mr Burnham’s plan for growth? We hear that he wants to put taxes up, has ruled out so-called crude cuts to welfare and is sceptical about what he calls “tech boosterism”. His growth plan is devolution, which may or may not boost growth, and I hope that it does, but it is for the longer term and is not an immediate growth plan. Yet this is just the moment to be getting behind tech. We have the potential to play a leading role in AI to reinforce our competitive advantage for innovation in start-ups, quantum and cyber, and to boost the productively we desperately need in the NHS.
Let us look at tax policy. Mr Burnham is considering bringing capital gains tax in line with income tax, which would give us the highest rate in Europe, with less money to invest in new businesses, businesses which create jobs. As the Tony Blair Institute warned just this week:
“Taxing our way to prosperity is both bad policy and bad politics”.
By hiking national insurance and the minimum wage for the youngest, and adding regulation to working rights, Labour have hammered businesses, not helped them: worsening job prospects, especially for the young, as many noble Lords have mentioned, and adding to their job struggles, as even the Resolution Foundation warned. We now have over 1 million NEETS, as many have said, with one in five working-age adults on benefits and that number is growing. Where is the balance here? This is a tragedy that our society can ill afford.
Let us remember what our commitment is: to help people who cannot and support those who can back to work. If the Government do not want to listen to me, they should listen to their own advisers: Alan Milburn, who speaks devastatingly of the silence of the unheard voice of young people applying for jobs; Stephen Timms, who warns that PIPs are due to double by 2030 and must be addressed, or even Charlie Mayhew, who tries to tackle sickness at work. We need urgently to reassess and rebalance. I urge the new Prime Minister to have a strategy for growth and the bravery to address some of these very difficult issues in our country by getting behind businesses and entrepreneurs, incentivising work, getting young people a footing in life and tackling the tragic and increasingly unaffordable welfare bill.
Baroness Gill (Lab)
My Lords, parliamentary tradition prevents me using the precise words required to describe the inheritance that the previous Government left behind on the topics of this Motion. Allow me to remind the House of that baseline: a classroom workforce in freefall, an economy addicted to insecure labour and a welfare state that ran up a staggering £2.8 billion bill. Nevertheless, I welcome and thank the noble Baroness, Lady Evans, for the opportunity to set up this Government’s record of achievement. We have had to step in to make good the severe macroeconomic impacts of a botched Brexit deal, the real impact of which has been felt up and down the country, permanently fracturing our supply chains, driving up core costs, squeezing our public finances and giving us the cost of living crisis. They built the crisis on their watch, yet in just two years this Government have systematically reversed their negative trends and delivered measurable progress.
Let us look at the hard numbers in education. The noble Baroness’s party oversaw a catastrophic depletion of our classrooms, leaving just under half a million full-time equivalent teachers with real-terms wages slashed by 9%. This Government have not just lamented the crisis: they have fixed the system. They have set an ambitious target to recruit 6,500 new, expert teachers in critical shortage subjects such as maths and physics. In just two years, the data shows that we have already successfully delivered over 70% of that workforce. Furthermore, this Government have funded the national rollout of free breakfast clubs in primary schools—although I will not go into that: my noble friend Lady Lister has spoken amply on that topic—proving that opportunity in Britain is once again a basic right and not an afterthought.
In employment, the previous Government built an entire economic model on low-wage, insecure, low-productivity labour. That allowed exploitative zero-hours contracts to explode. I spoke to countless people in my old West Midlands constituency who shared the reality of zero-hours contracts with me. They did not know whether they were going to work that day, they did not know how long they would be working and they did not know how much they would be paid. Try to sort out your childcare, or manage your weekly shop, with that reality. That is why this Government brought in the Employment Rights Act. In under 24 months, we have legally banned exploitative zero-hours contracts, instantly granting a statutory right to guaranteed hours to over 2 million workers.
My final couple of points are on welfare. The previous Government used the DWP to penalise vulnerability, pushing people into destitution. In two years, we have transformed the DWP into a genuine Department for Work, launched a £240 million Connect to Work scheme to move 100,000 people safely back into careers, and introduced a Right to Try guarantee. This Government did not create the post-Brexit fiscal headwinds, nor did we cause the decay of our public services, but we are fixing them. In two years, we have done more to restore education, worker security and basic human dignity than the previous Administration managed in over a decade. The data is quite clear. The reversal is under way and Britain is finally moving forward.
Lord Evans of Guisborough (Con)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to take part in the debate. I express my gratitude to my noble friend Lady Evans for presenting the case against the Government so eloquently at the start of the debate. It has been very interesting to follow a number of distinguished speakers. It is a particular privilege to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Gill, who made a stirring attempt to defend the Government’s record. I hope that Mr Burnham is watching this somewhere, and that he will be able to provide the rewards which are so clearly deserved for that effort. I merely point out that, sooner or later, it will be impossible to blame the previous Government for the current Government’s failings and, of course, much sooner it will be impossible to blame the previous Prime Minister for the current Government’s failings. We will see how things develop.
My own experience in this area comes from having been the Deputy Mayor of London, where I dealt with schools, businesses, employment and skills. It is perhaps a slightly unusual spread of experience in the House today: we have heard from a lot of former Ministers. However, as the new Prime Minister takes over, perhaps this will become a more relevant piece of experience, because he has talked a lot about learning things from the regions and applying them to national government. I will be interested to see what he does, and to see whether the Minister can raise the curtain on some of the things that we can expect from the new Prime Minister. There are good things to be learned and not just, of course, from Manchester, although I am sure that there are other things we can pick up from there as well.
My noble friend Lady Coffey talked a lot about incentives, and I will just touch on the way that regulation—in particular, taxation around national insurance—has disincentivised business from employing people. We hear a lot about how having a low-paid job is a bad thing, but I would suggest that having no job at all is an even worse thing. That is where a lot of people are heading, given the current policies that are being pursued.
I have not had the benefit of a briefing from UKHospitality but I know, because I go out in my own high street in Romford probably a bit too often, and meet people running restaurants and bars there, how challenging it is for them to employ people now under the new national insurance rules. It is a very employee-intense industry. You need to employ a lot of people and everyone you employ is an additional cost, so national insurance has hit them particularly hard. They were doing well last night—the high street was absolutely full of people—but usually they do not do so well. The Government need to start thinking about how they are going to help the hospitality industry to provide those entry-level jobs that so many people take on when they first leave education.
My noble friend Lord Leigh talked about the impact on the care sector. We have hospices in Essex which have struggled to deal with the national insurance impact. I know the Government provided some extra money for hospices as a result, and that is very welcome; we should be grateful for funding from government. But we should also be aware that that funding was intended for capital projects. It will make no difference to the extra costs imposed on the hospice sector by the national insurance problem that it is trying to deal with.
I look forward to the Minister’s response to this debate. She and I spent some months working together in the Middle East in the past, so I know how indefatigable and tough she can be. Resolving this problem will require every bit of her strength, so, rather like my noble friend Lord Baker, I hope that she retains her role in the next Government.
Baroness Nargund (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Evans, for securing this debate. I declare my interest as pro-chancellor of the University of Portsmouth and honorary professor of women’s health at City St George’s University of London.
Education, employment and welfare are interconnected. When education fails, employment suffers. When secure work is out of reach, welfare dependency rises. If we are serious about breaking that cycle, the ambition must be a country where opportunity is decided not by your social status but on your potential. This is exactly the future that this Government are working towards.
I will focus on the education aspect of this debate. Education is where opportunity begins. Research shows that over a third of children start reception not ready for school, and one in four arrive without basic language skills. I welcome the expansion of Best Start family hubs, free breakfast clubs and 30 hours of childcare for eligible families put in place by this Government. These are investments in our children and our country’s future.
Education must prepare young people not simply for examinations but to live healthy, happy, productive and informed lives. I have long argued that more health modules, such as reproductive health and women’s health modules, should form part of secondary and post-16 education for all pupils. Too many girls grow up believing that pain is normal. Too many women spend years fighting to have their symptoms believed. Knowledge changes attitudes, breaks stigma, helps tackle the gender health gap and prevents medical misogyny.
The need for change must continue in medical education itself. Our healthcare workforce should reflect the communities it serves and understand the inequalities people face, particularly in access, experiences and outcomes. That means embedding cultural competency throughout healthcare education and ensuring future clinicians understand the wider determinants of health, which account for 80% to 90% of health outcomes. I know that our Government are introducing cultural competency education, and I hope it is there throughout the healthcare profession.
As pro-chancellor of the University of Portsmouth, I have seen how medical education can drive regional renewal. Portsmouth’s new medical school is training future doctors entirely within the local health system, with a grow-your-own approach to reduce inequalities and strengthen local communities over time. The aim is also to encourage students to stay locally rather than moving to bigger cities such as London, demonstrating a novel model to connect higher education with local employment and long-term local economic growth. Will the upcoming workforce plan consider a recruit locally, train locally, retain talent locally approach to create local growth? Will cultural competency be embedded throughout to tackle health inequalities?
Good growth needs good education. Good education needs good health. Together, they build a healthier, happier, fairer and more prosperous Britain.
Baroness Spielman (Con)
My Lords, my noble friend Baroness Evans of Bowes Park, in her excellent speech, and many others, have made strong points about the previous Government’s achievements in education. I will not repeat them, except to say that we are in the bizarre position of having delegations from overseas visiting our schools to see how we have achieved so much in education—even as the current Government work to dismantle the reforms that enabled this great progress.
I want to speak today about young people and their trajectory from childhood to productive and satisfying adulthood. Our national aim should be to build children and young people’s capacity and resilience on every front, yet the current focus of education and welfare systems is working against that. Government education policies overwhelmingly target disadvantage and low achievement. That sounds lovely, but this policy is built around mechanisms that encourage children and young people to view themselves as damaged or less than capable.
Once a child is defined and sees themselves that way, such as through having a SEND label and then perhaps a child disability allowance claim, it is now all too likely that they will become an early PIP claimant, at which point their chances of ever moving into stable employment are increasingly poor. In fact, a decision to grant PIP to a young person who suffers from, say, anxiety or ADHD, may be the single cruellest thing a Government could ever do to them. All too probably, it consigns them unnecessarily to a lifetime of dependency, yet such claims have rocketed in the past two years.
I am afraid that the Timms review shows, by its weakness and its omissions, that there is no real appetite to address this appalling waste of human life. It does not distinguish between some fundamentally different types of condition. There are some disabilities that are lifelong and preclude work entirely. There are some that are lifelong and that will limit some aspects of capacity permanently, but that do not preclude people’s ability and willingness to work; Down syndrome is a good example. There are other conditions that may be temporary or permanent but, for most, need only be temporarily debilitating. Most people diagnosed with anxiety or ADHD should ultimately be successful and happy at work, so a blanket disability label is failing many of them.
The review also does not recognise that the explosion in numbers may partly reflect a loss of confidence and resilience in our population, rather than any real loss of capacity. It also dismisses the very real loss of public confidence in PIP, despite much evidence for this. DWP’s own figures show that detected fraud has tripled in the past year. The review barely touches on the value of work to individuals, but we know that there is a huge human cost of worklessness. The Minister, Sir Stephen Timms MP, seems entirely unconcerned about the apparently uncontrollable increase in PIP spending, described as “not of great concern”. Yet, as Alan Milburn has pointed out, we are spending a lot on young people, but on the wrong things.
My noble friends Lady Coffey, Lady Stedman-Scott, Lord Willetts, and many others have made constructive suggestions. Recent Budgets and legislation have plainly worsened employer willingness and capacity to hire the young, and youth unemployment is predictably rising. Can the Minister tell us whether the Government will direct the Timms review to addressing the difficult questions that, I am afraid, it has so far ducked? Will the Government bring forward measures to modify the policies they have brought in that, no matter how well-intended, are proving damaging to human lives?
Lord John of Southwark (Lab)
My Lords, when I saw that the noble Baroness, Lady Evans, had put this subject down for a debate today, for which I thank her, I thought I should take a look at the statistics to examine whether I had missed a particularly bad report on education or employment. I was reassured to learn that GCSE and A-level grades in 2025 were slightly better than in 2024 and that, while our employment rates have fractionally decreased over the past two years, the number of those classed as economically inactive had also fallen by over one percentage point. Looking at welfare, the latest ONS data suggests that the number of people claiming out-of-work benefits is just over 30,000 higher than in July 2024, but sadly, we find that there has been a significant increase in the number of people claiming universal credit. However, that increase also came at the same time that working tax credits came to an end and those claimants were shifted to universal credit.
My view is that we sometimes get the language around welfare wrong. Moving from a system of working tax credits, predicated on support for those in work, to universal credit, which perhaps suggests a life supported by government, was a serious mistake. I ask the Minister to think carefully about how the Government can better use language to make this kind of government financial support once again appear more supportive of the notion of a hand up to those on low pay.
I do not share the nihilistic view of the subject matter of this debate of some noble Lords opposite. Perhaps the most worrying figure today is the number of young people, 16 to 24 year-olds, who are not in education, employment or training. There have always been NEETs; they were not created or invented in July 2024. But it seems to be a post-Covid phenomenon that we have reached 1 million of them at this time.
I am reassured by the preliminary report of Alan Milburn and the response of Pat McFadden, the Secretary of State, who have rightly focused our attention on what we need to do. It is ludicrous that we spend only £1 on helping a NEET into work for every £25 we give them in benefits. Sometimes we need to invest to save, and to give hope to those younger people who are entering a very different world of work with the challenges of the gig economy and AI.
The noble Lord, Lord Willetts, talked about employability schemes. It is important to recognise the work of organisations such as the Old Vic Theatre, of which I am a trustee, which run employability schemes. Take the Lead and Front Line help over 1,000 young people each year with basic employability; that is commendable for a charity, the Old Vic, and others like it.
The final version of the Milburn review is due in September, but the work has already begun to make it a central mission of this Labour Government to reduce the number of NEETs and create a workforce fit for our times. I know that will not change on Monday or Tuesday next week. I suppose the clue is in the name, but I am reassured that this is a Labour Government who care about labour.
Lord Addington (LD)
My Lords, I am afraid I could have predicted some of the lines of this debate. Indeed, in the first speech, we heard the noble Baroness, Lady Evans, saying how dreadful everything is. The response from the noble Lord, Lord Rooker, reminded me of a guard dog having its tail stood on. He went back, justifiably, because what have we got here? We have the Government doing what Governments always do: reacting to what has happened before.
Although we can say wonderful things about various bits of the education system, there are things that did not go right. The first report I received was about off-rolling—a wonderful product of the academy system, where everybody goes out and passes more exams but we also have fewer people in education. That was in 2020, before Covid. The report brought forward by the noble Lord, Lord Johnson of Marylebone, titled Requires Improvement: Urgent Change for 11–16 Education, looks at further education and the fact that, once again, the system is overly academic. There were problems that came with the academisation programme and things that were not embraced. The first one was that not everybody is good at passing exams, yet they were being told, in a very loud voice, “No, that is what matters”.
We need to start to address that in the education programme and in the preparation for what comes next, which for many people is further education. There is an agreement, possibly going back to new Labour, that we put too much emphasis on universities, or that universities stopped doing level 4 and level 5 courses. Let us face it: some of the new universities came from a world where they successfully did this and it was dumped. We all have our history to deal with here. The noble Lord, Lord Baker, has a solution, as he always does. It is one that we have probably not totally mined to get the best out of it, but it is certainly one way forward: making sure that we take on further education and up its status. There is also a degree of agreement that we have not done that properly.
Having said that, my questions to the Government now come thick and fast. Aside from what the Government are doing to recruit 6,500 more teachers, what are they doing about getting all those teachers who have left the industry back into it? What about re-recruitment? People who we invested in and trained have left in their droves; what are the Government doing to bring them back in? Have the Government looked at what would be required to make it more attractive to come back and teach? That is fundamental about this process.
I turn to educational needs—anybody who put money on me raising that have won, but they would not have got very good odds. I will reserve my comments on the remarks from the noble Baroness, Lady Spielman. We know that, for years and years, we have ignored and not recognised people who have special educational needs, and we have not found out who they are, in particular girls, who are very good at surviving in the classroom by masking, disappearing in the middle of it and not commenting. Most of the time, they get through without causing too much trouble. They underachieve dramatically in most cases, and have huge mental health problems and scars because of it, but they get through. On the other hand, boys typically—these are, of course, stereotypes—kick off at the back of the class, get thrown out, and get sent to the pupil referral unit. Not long ago, it was confirmed to me that every child in a pupil referral unit is expected to have at least one special educational need.
We have not dealt with this. It was accepted as part of the previous Government’s and the coalition Government’s reforms. Maybe I should not have acquired so many scars on my tongue and the inside of my mouth from not speaking at the time—although maybe some people think I should have acquired a few more. If we are not going to address this historical lag on this historical pressure that has pushed people outside then we are going to have trouble. We have trouble, but we are going to have more. I hope that the Minister will be able to tell me exactly when we are going to get a practical system of support in schools. As I have mentioned on other occasions, we can then take it as read that certain groups will be very difficult to deal with in schools. We will need a mixed economy.
I remind the House that I am chairman of Microlink PC, which works in assistive technology; that I am president of the British Dyslexia Association; and that I am dyslexic myself. What are we going to do to make sure that those people who have traditionally failed are allowed to get through? We had a great emphasis on passing English and maths. Great: we have taken one group, possibly the biggest group, and put an extra load right on the back of their necks. We have said, “You will not go to the next stage because you’ve failed”. There have been exemptions: the children of the middle classes who can get the diagnosis and have the tiger parent to advocate for them get something out of it, but those who do not come from exam-passing backgrounds do not. I hope that the Minister can give us some practical guidance on how the teachers who we are short of, and who we are trying to recruit, will be better capable of spotting and putting in fairly easily administered support structures.
Let us use assistive technology to allow dyslexics to deliver in English in a format that someone can get around. Voice recognition is a standard factor in every computer that has been given to any Member of this House or the other. It is there with the push of a couple of buttons; I can show people how it works. It is also on every mobile phone, hence why I have one or two caveats about the “demon of mobile phones”. What are we doing there?
Then you can go on to other groups, such as those with dyscalculia; with the noble Baroness, Lady Bull, sitting on the Woolsack, I would be a fool not to mention them. We need to think about how we are going to identify, help and support other groups. These people are at their most vulnerable. They will get stopped by an education system that says, “Pass an exam”, and will have to go down a secondary route. People know when they are branded as stupid and they carry it with them for the rest of their lives. I was very lucky; I had that tiger parent. If the Government do not address this properly, they will guarantee the existence of a group of people who will find it increasingly difficult to get employed.
To be perfectly honest, upping any taxation threshold that falls directly on employment is not the best and smartest move in the world to get people out and into the marketplace. That has not helped, but if we are looking for a high-skilled, high-value workforce then we have to start to address those problems and get people ready for that world. Everything is changing. “We do not even know what will be required” is the average recruitment strategy. At the moment, whether it is a bump due to fear or something else, it looks like that the undergraduate route is not going to work any more and it comes with debts. The big question we should all be asking is: what are the Government going to do about accessibility to good further education? Unless we come away with a series of answers and strategies, we will let down that big group who do not find the academic system that easy to access and are not going to succeed at the top end but still have an expectation of being prepared for the field of work. I hope that the Minister starts to answer these questions today. Although these questions were not invented two years ago, the current Government have the responsibility for finding coherent answers.
Baroness Cash (Con)
My Lords, what an excellent debate—the House at its very best. I have lost count of the number of former Ministers and Cabinet members speaking on their areas of expertise. I thank them all. What is striking is how much we agree on. No one here disagrees with the notion that our children should be lifted out of poverty, that they should realise their potential, that they should have productive and fulfilling lives, and that we want to see our country flourish and thrive. Where we differ is about how we get there.
We will not agree on all that, but there may be some things that we can learn from today. It is the case that the Government inherited record employment, some of the strongest reading and numeracy results in the western world, a narrowing disadvantage gap in our primary schools and an economy back in growth. It would be wrong, however, not to acknowledge the profound and lasting effects of the pandemic on school attendance, mental health and our national working culture and the fact that the Government inherited those challenges also. The question today is whether they have risen to the challenges.
I do not know whether noble Lords are aware of parallel play. It is a phrase used in child psychology to describe how children up to the age of two play next to each other with similar toys but do not actively interact. That is how the Government’s own reviewer, Alan Milburn, has described this Government’s lack of strategy. Perhaps that lack of strategy is itself the consequence of what the Prime Minister’s former chief of staff Morgan McSweeney admitted was a failure to prepare for government. Playing at governing has real-life consequences and it is our young people who pay the highest price.
The problems since July 2024 in the Government’s performance can be traced to the contradictions that lie within so much of what they have done. This could not be more vividly or sadly illustrated than by the way in which they have torn down a cornerstone of their own party’s legacy under Tony Blair. In 2021, England’s 10 year-olds were ranked fourth in the world for reading—the best in the West—and, in mathematics, we had climbed from 27th to 11th. By 2018, the disadvantage gap at the end of primary school was down to 9.2 months, the narrowest ever recorded. That work began under the previous Labour Government, and I pay tribute to the part that the Minister opposite played in that when she was Education Minister in the Blair Government.
When we entered government, we built on those foundations proudly. Policy Exchange research has found that 83% of the highest-performing schools serving disadvantaged children are academies or free schools but, inexplicably, this Government’s Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Act will end that success by returning to the old default of central control, without a shred of evidence of how that will affect outcomes. This Government have said that they want to eliminate the advantage gap—we all do—but then inexplicably undid the very reforms begun by their own party that had helped the most disadvantaged.
What about our young adults? We have heard so much about them today. More than 1 million young people are now outside education, employment or training—it is the first time that we have crossed that line since 2013. Alan Milburn is clear that the causes are complex and the Minister has said the same in this House. I agree, but Milburn’s verdict is still damning. He puts the cost at £125 billion a year and describes the young victims of this chaos as a “lost generation”. Eighty-four per cent of them want to work, yet nearly two-thirds have never held a paid job. In his words,
“The aspiration is there. The opportunity is not”.
Why not? We have heard today from the Benches behind me about the economic consequences of the taxation rises. What have the Government done to opportunity? They have raised the cost of taxation on business and hit the cost of employing young people from three different directions. There are some £25 billion of new costs through the national insurance rise; yes, young people are exempted from national insurance, but the burden carried by those businesses has been stated repeatedly by our public bodies as the reason why they are not hiring young people. It is no good to say that young people are exempt when businesses talk about having to cut all their jobs. A record 16% rise in the minimum wage for 18 to 20 year-olds makes them much more expensive to hire, and excessive new employment rights make taking on an untested young worker a bigger risk for many smaller firms, which they simply cannot afford.
The Government were warned so many times. The IFS warned that the combined changes would reduce opportunities for younger workers. The Bank of England’s chief economist told the Treasury Committee that it would hit those aged 16 to 21 hardest. The Low Pay Commission said that employment would fall most among the young. The Government ploughed ahead, and the result has been brutal. Today, two years after this Government were elected, youth unemployment is close to one in six, at 16.2%—according to the Labour Force Survey, that is the highest in over a decade. The number of NEETs is also tracking upwards, according to Alan Milburn. He says it will reach 1.25 million—another quarter of a million—within five years. The ONS has confirmed that firms are not hiring because of the cost of employment.
Again, we see contradictions at the heart of government, with one department spending public money on the youth scheme that we have heard about today to coax young people into work while others have taken the jobs away. As one of the great heroes of the left, Aneurin Bevan, said, we know what happens to people when they are unemployed. Their skill goes, their hope goes and their self-respect goes. They are an army of the defeated. That army is now 4 million people of working age. One in 10 is on health-related benefits, and more than half of the rise since the pandemic relates to mental health.
Here, again, the Government’s left and right hands do not meet. Their Health Secretary says this country overdiagnoses mental health and writes too many people off—so much so that he commissioned Professor Fonagy to examine the striking rise of diagnosis of anxiety, depression, ADHD and autism. But the welfare system continues to pay out in ever greater numbers on precisely those diagnoses. The state has become quicker to pay for a condition than to treat it.
The science reinforces what Bevan knew. The research warns about excessive labelling. One of the world’s most cited neuroscientists, Lisa Feldman Barrett, shows that the brain learns to expect what we teach it to expect. Label difficult behaviours as fixed incapacity and people believe they are incapable. One part of government says we label too much and another is funding the labelling and calling it support. Milburn describes a welfare gateway that has become a one-way valve, cohorts staying longer and longer, funding the problem but not solving it, and so the vicious circle remains closed. The very taxes raised to fund the welfare bill have destroyed the entry-level jobs that, on the Government’s own evidence, would have kept young people busy and well. The revenue measure has defeated the fiscal aim. Funding more diagnosis defeats the health aim. Each department, as Milburn says, plays alone next to the others, and real young people fall through the gaps between them.
None of this evidence is mine. It is their evidence, their data, their reviewer, their Health Secretary, their own party’s research. They were warned. They were asked to stop but they have carried on, and a generation of young people, our nation’s taxpayers and the British economy are paying the price.
The Minister of State, Department for Education and Department for Work and Pensions (Baroness Smith of Malvern) (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the House for some really interesting and wide-ranging contributions today, and the noble Baroness, Lady Evans, for bringing this debate to the House this afternoon. If it is a Thursday afternoon, it must be a debate on education, employment and young people.
As I say, it has been a broad debate, but as a Minister who works across the Department for Education and the Department for Work and Pensions, I know all too well just how interlinked the areas we have covered today often are. Whichever system we are talking about—education, employment or welfare—none operates in a vacuum, and they all have an important role to play in extending opportunity so that everybody can fulfil their potential. This is key to raising living standards and boosting economic growth. Sadly, though, as my noble friends Lord Rooker and Lady Gill identified very robustly, we inherited a broken system that too often did the opposite and held people back.
If we are examining the record of this Government so far, it is important to consider the starting point when we took office. Education was not working for all children, school attendance was at an all-time low and local authorities were being bankrupted by the rising costs of special educational needs and children’s social care. The number of children growing up in poverty had increased by 700,000 since 2010 to 4 million. Nearly 1.5 million adults were unemployed, and between 2021 and 2024 the number of young people not in employment, education or training increased by 250,000. We had a welfare system that all too readily wrote people off and left them without the support they needed. This was an unacceptable waste of human potential. That is why this Government are putting opportunity at the heart of our education, employment support and welfare systems. We are doing this by giving children the best start in life and by lifting 500,000 children out of poverty—my noble friend Lady Lister is absolutely right in identifying the link between poverty and education and opportunity.
We are increasing the number of people, particularly young people, in education, employment and training, and we are shifting from a welfare state to a working state that provides not only a safety net but a platform upon which people can change their lives for the better. The noble Baronesses, Lady Coffey, Lady Stedman-Scott and Lady Spielman, bemoan the fact that the welfare system incentivises people to stay out of work. They are right that that is a bad design. It was of course the design that we inherited from their Government.
My noble friend Lady Nargund was absolutely right to describe education as “where opportunity begins”. That is why this Government stand for excellence everywhere, across education and care, to break the link between background and success. We are fixing the foundations of our education and care systems by ensuring that attendance is going back up; hiring more teachers, social workers and nursery staff; rebuilding more schools and opening free breakfast clubs; stabilising our universities and increasing training opportunities. On universities, I share the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Newcastle’s view of the significance and importance of humanities for understanding our world and being able to tell the stories and build the analysis of where we need to go. Of course, it is not the role of government to tell universities what courses to offer, but it is our task to deliver financial stability to ensure proper planning and provision of all courses, including humanities courses. That is what we are doing, through our increase in maximum tuition fees and through our focus, in the Office for Students, on financial stability.
Despite this progress, we must go further and faster to ensure that everybody has the opportunity to succeed. We must start early, which is why we are investing £1.5 billion over the next three years, through our best start in life strategy, to expand and strengthen family services and make early education and childcare more accessible, more affordable and of higher quality. It is why we will improve the quality of early education and childcare. It is why we are making sure that every child is achieving and thriving, through the work of our RISE teams that are driving school improvement. It is why we are recruiting more teachers in secondary and special schools. It is our ambition to halve the disadvantage gap for children with special educational needs and disabilities.
The noble Lord, Lord Mohammed, raises the issue of primary schools, where we see a real challenge from the falling numbers of primary pupils. Even this week, we have talked about imaginative ways of enabling school buildings, for example, to be used to develop community and other facilities, and we will continue to consider the challenges for schools as that demography changes.
The noble Baroness, Lady Bottomley, and the noble Lord, Lord Addington, rightly raise the issue of teachers. High-quality teaching has the biggest positive impact on a child’s outcome in schools, which is why we pledged to recruit 6,500 additional teachers across this Parliament in secondary and special schools and FE. We have already achieved over 70% of our target, including 3,008 more teachers in secondary and special schools since this Government came to office. We are continuing to offer bursaries worth £29,000 tax free to encourage more talented people to train to teach key STEM subjects. Both noble Lords suggested, and I agree with them, that retaining high-quality teachers is key to our plans. I am sure they will welcome the fact that we are making strong progress, with leaver rates dropping to 8.5%, one of the lowest ever on record. Of course, part of the reason for that is because we have been willing to find the resources to pay teachers properly, with a 10% pay increase over the last two years and acceptance of the STRB’s recommendations for the next two years. We have set out plans to invest in a new teacher retention programme from autumn 2026.
To ensure that everybody who can benefit from our world-class higher education system is able to, we are reintroducing maintenance grants for courses for the academic year 2028-29. This will ensure that anyone with the ability can access university. We are prioritising skills and further education—as the noble Lord, Lord Addington, demanded that we should, and as we set out in our skills White Paper—including through record investment in post-16 education and skills, with more than £18 billion a year in funding and an additional £800 million for 16 to 19 education in 2026-27.
We are expanding high-quality technical and vocational pathways through new V-levels and more T-levels and by establishing 29 technical excellence colleges. While I am loath to disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Baker, given the nice things he said about me, it was the current Prime Minister who made a strong speech about the need to reinvigorate non-academic routes and to develop a prestigious FE sector, which we have been delivering on. We will also give, and have already given, local leaders more powers and funding to shape provision to meet local skills needs.
To boost employment, we are making sure not just that people get skills but that they get the skills that employers and our economy need. That focus is precisely why I am now working across both departments, with DWP now responsible for adult skills. We are able to link that skills capacity and understanding more closely to the employment support that we are offering through the new jobs and careers service. We set up Skills England to assess skills needs to inform national planning. We have made the skills system more flexible, for example with shorter, more targeted training options to meet specific and fast-changing needs in the form of new apprenticeship units, developing the flexibility in the growth and skills levy to meet the needs of employers. We are investing in skills packages for key sectors in construction, defence, clean energy and advanced manufacturing. We have introduced fast-track approval of new apprenticeship standards to get rapid skills support in place for major projects in England.
All this is about making sure that people are able to seize the opportunities of the future. While some noble Lords may paint a rather pessimistic picture of the labour market, others, such as my noble friend Lady O’Grady, are right to be more optimistic. There are 400,000 more people in employment than last year; we have the third-highest employment rate in the G7; and since this Government took over, real wages have risen more than in the first 10 years of the previous Government. These figures show not a failing Government but one who are creating opportunity and security for their people.
However, we of course know that there is more to do. With over a million young people not earning or learning, and nearly 3 million people out of work due to long-term sickness, we are determined not only to help people into work but to ensure that it is good work. My noble friend Lord Knight is right to say that a determined focus on employment can make a difference, and that is why this Government are determined not to give up on a generation of young people.
That is why we are investing £3.5 billion in employment support for disabled people and those with health conditions, through our pathways to work offer, and overhauling job centres to be places where you sign up for work, not benefits. When it comes to young people who are not earning or learning, as has been emphasised by several noble Lords during the debate, we are creating half a million opportunities for young people to earn or learn, backed by £2.5 billion of additional investment through our youth guarantee. These include hiring bonuses for businesses, more work experience and workplace training, and subsidised jobs for young people who are out of work for 18 months; and we are rebuilding the apprenticeships ladder for young people, given the 40% fall in young people’s apprenticeships starts that we saw over the last decade.
Many noble Lords opposite raised the issue of national insurance increases and the minimum wage. I recognise why, and it is a common refrain, but they do so at the same time as praising the Milburn report that this Government commissioned. As I have pointed out previously, it was Alan Milburn himself who identified the fact that it is neither national insurance nor the national minimum wage which is at the heart of—or even really key to—the number of young people who are out of work. Furthermore, the Resolution Foundation Lost in Transition report found that reverting national insurance levels to the 2024 threshold for under-25s would raise the job total by 7,000 but cost the Exchequer £1 billion. Scrapping NICs entirely for under-25s would create only 38,000 jobs and cost £5.1 billion. Noble Lords opposite who want to talk, and always do, about national insurance contributions need to answer the question of what they would cut to revert this Government’s national insurance contribution changes. Presumably it would be the investment in our health service, which is helping to cut the waiting lists that keep people out of work and create additional burdens for employers. The Resolution Foundation also said that, through our £2.5 billion funding of the youth guarantee, our hiring incentives and jobs guarantee will unlock up to 200,000 employment opportunities.
I believe that we are focusing on the right place. Of course, we also need to prevent people becoming out of work and not learning in the first place. That is why we are also focused on prevention, including better support for young people with SEND and those with mental health challenges, as we roll out support across schools. My noble friend Lord Knight is right that schools need to have greater responsibility for the destinations of their students and the transition of young people at 16, so that they do not fall out of the system.
The noble Lord, Lord Baker, is right about the contribution made by technical education, and I have already outlined the changes the Government are making. The noble Lord, Lord Willetts, is right that we need to use data effectively to be able to identify at an early stage those who are at risk of becoming NEET, which is why we have provided for local authorities the “risk of NEET” indicator tools. These enable them, at the earliest stages of secondary school, to identify the young people who are at risk and take action to prevent them falling through the gaps.
All this is designed to get more people into work, and we are ensuring that it is good work—we make no apology for that—by boosting the national minimum wage, partnering with employers through the Keep Britain Working review to build healthier and more inclusive workplaces, and bolstering workers’ rights with the Employment Rights Act. I wholeheartedly agree with my noble friend Lady O’Grady’s argument for productive, not just cheap, labour.
Much of what I have already set out is welfare reform in action. It is how we are putting work, skills and opportunity at the heart of the welfare state. Welfare spending as a percentage of GDP continues to be broadly stable, as it has been for many years, and we have slowed the increase in the number of people coming on to health and disability benefits. This is where spending is increasing the most.
Far from circling the wagons around the status quo, we are determined to rewire the social security system itself, as my noble friend Lord John argued for, to promote and support work. This includes through the changes we have made to universal credit to reduce disincentives to work; by legislating for a right to try, so that disabled people can take steps into work without fear of automatic reassessment; and increasing the proportion of face-to-face assessments, which collapsed under the previous Government.
In the medium term, the Timms review of personal independence payment, to ensure it is fair and fit for the future, and the Milburn review into young people and work, have both already produced their interim reports ahead of publishing full reports later this year. This will provide the framework for further action in both these crucial areas.
From childhood through to adulthood, across the education, employment and welfare systems, we are ensuring that everybody gets the chance to succeed, equipping people with the qualifications and skills they need, creating the opportunities they need and changing the welfare system, so that instead of trapping people, it helps people to change their lives. Rather than picking up the costs of failure, we are investing in success. That is better for people’s lives and better for the public finances, and it is the change this Labour Government are delivering.
Baroness Evans of Bowes Park (Con)
My Lords, I am very grateful for the contributions of noble Lords across the House to this debate. A wealth of expertise, experience and passion has been evident throughout.
What came across loud and clear in so many contributions—indeed, it was acknowledged by the Minister in her wind-up—was the need for government to consider policies and interventions across education, employment and welfare in the round. They are inextricably interconnected, and policies developed in one silo of government can have unintended and damaging consequences in another—as, unfortunately, we have seen too often over the last couple of years. As we heard powerfully across the House, nowhere is this joined-up thinking more urgently needed than in tackling the growing number of young people not in education, employment and training.
I again thank everyone who has contributed today and commend this Motion to the House.
Early Release Prisoners: Preventing Homelessness and Rough Sleeping
(3 weeks, 6 days ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Farmer
To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the effectiveness of partnership working between prisons and local housing authorities in preventing homelessness and rough sleeping among prisoners released early.
Lord Farmer (Con)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who are here today to debate an issue that could get lost amidst the penal populism informing much of the response to the next waves of early release following the Sentencing Act 2026.
Why do I refer to penal populism? Crime must be punished, and I completely understand the concerns of many victims about early release. However, the public vengefulness politicians court to achieve popularity, notably by demanding ever-longer custodial sentences, has led to ever-longer sentences, clogged up our prisons and contributed to the need for these great swathes of early release. The inflation in custodial sentence length between 2010 and 2025 was 45%.
In their book, The Honest Politician’s Guide to Prisons and Probation, criminologists King and Willmott reveal just how many ex-Justice Secretaries, from both main parties, regret “playing to the gallery” as
“tough law and order figures”,
as my noble friend Lord Clarke of Nottingham, who was Home Secretary following the 1992 general election, described his successors. This response was driven by the understandable outcry following the Jamie Bulger killing in early 1993 by two other children. Instead of acknowledging the need to challenge inadequate parenting and manage expectations about what a criminal justice system can do, the Home Secretary who followed my noble friend Lord Clarke kickstarted the still ongoing competition between the two main parties as to who could be toughest on crime.
My response to the arms race that penal populism generates and has filled our prisons with is that, like the nuclear arms race, we simply cannot afford the price tag, either in sheer cash terms of £60,000 to £65,000 per prisoner per annum, or the squandering of human potential. Those sentenced for sexual offences—over one-fifth of prisoners—are treated as unreservedly heinous despite considerable variability in seriousness and the hypersexualisation of society. We want to lock them up and throw away the key, but the vast majority will leave prison. They and we need their genuine rehabilitation. Many have lost their families, livelihoods and homes. Only about one-third move into settled accommodation post release, compared to the average of around 45%.
More generally, imprisonment itself renders offenders homeless when tenancies lapse, mortgages are not paid or family circumstances mean they cannot return home. Despite a continuing duty of care, far too many are released homeless. Also, rehabilitation without a proper roof is almost impossible, and the statistics bear this out: their proven reoffending rate of 76% is more than double the 36.4% of those who reoffend after being released into settled accommodation. Can the Minister confirm whether the Government have assessed how many of those released early are likely to return to prison, whether through recalls for breaching licence conditions or reoffending?
This is a far grislier question, but have they assessed how many are likely to die? Leaving prison homeless is a major risk factor for death shortly after release. Last month, a Guardian investigation reported record numbers of deaths within two weeks of release in 2025—a 28% rise since 2021. Similarly, the charity Nacro found that more than one person dies every day in the year after leaving prison, and last year one in every 144 people released died within that period, more than three times the rate in 2015. In 40% of cases, drugs are a factor and homelessness interacts fatally with that: there is no structure, support or healthcare.
Inside Time, the prisoners’ newspaper—which I know the Minister reads, as do I—says that:
“An estimated 6,000 prisoners will be released earlier than planned from English and Welsh jails in 10 monthly tranches, starting on 2 September”.
So it is very concerning that HM Inspectorate of Prisons told the Commons Public Accounts Committee in November 2024 that, at some prisons, the limited housing stock available for those released had been
“overwhelmed by early release schemes”.
Although the Government have responded to Written Questions by saying that local authorities collaborate effectively with the Prison Service to reduce homelessness, Ministry of Justice data shows that almost 13,000 people left prison homeless or as rough sleepers in the year to April 2025—a 39% rise from the previous year. Similarly, the Government’s A National Plan to End Homelessness states that this
“could have been prevented had better coordination and planning been in place”.
The duty to refer in the Homelessness Reduction Act 2017 was designed to facilitate this, and almost half of all “duty to refer” referrals are from criminal justice system organisations. Almost 10 years on from that Act, I welcome the implicit recognition in the proposed new duty to collaborate that it is not working as it should for ex-prisoners. Will the Minister explain how the new duty to collaborate will achieve the level of change required and whether it will be introduced in time to meet September’s heightened need for housing? What incentives, or even sanctions where necessary, will be put in place to ensure better joint working, not least in the interests of rehabilitation?
Prison capacity has been such an emergency issue, but the time has surely come for this to come into much sharper focus as a slower-burn way of reducing our prison population and the criminal justice budget. Reoffending costs us all £18 billion a year. Releasing prisoners into homelessness, especially rough sleeping, single-handedly undermines any previous and future rehabilitation activity. Without accommodation, they cannot seek work and restructure their lives.
Collaboration with local housing authorities is essential for rehabilitation. Some are far more effective than others at finding accommodation for ex-prisoners, even in areas of very pressured housing markets. The Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman reports that many London boroughs compare badly with statistical neighbours where housing is concerned. In 2025, the London Assembly housing committee flagged inconsistent practice across London boroughs with weak co-ordination between prisons, probation and borough housing teams; prisons not consistently complying with the duty to refer; and late referrals from prisons contributing greatly to uncertainty.
I return to the plan to end homelessness. This Government have committed, by the end of this Parliament, to a 50% reduction in homelessness among people on their first night out of prison and an increase in the number of prison leavers in settled accommodation three months post release and thereafter. To conclude, I ask the Minister to outline how prisons and probation will deliver their responsibilities under the plan to embed local partnerships, collocation and pre-release planning.
Baroness Gill (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Farmer, for securing this important debate. For 1,000 prison leavers every single month, their first day of freedom is the first day of a new sentence: rough sleeping on our streets. The cyclical link between homelessness and the justice system is not an abstract policy debate; it is an urgent humanitarian and public safety emergency happening right outside our doors.
We must be honest about how we got here. This crisis is the structural inheritance of 14 years of systemic neglect by previous Governments. On their watches we have seen a staggering rise in rough sleeping and a left-behind, crumbling prison estate running dangerously close to absolute capacity because of a failure to build secure social housing. Worse, they chose punishment over prevention. By keeping the archaic Vagrancy Act on the statute book, the state’s default response to a vulnerable prison leaver sleeping in a doorway was to criminalise rather than support them. It was a broken approach that practically guaranteed a fast-track route back to custody. As a result, 68% of prisoners released directly on to the streets reoffend within a single year.
Thankfully, we are seeing a fundamental shift from crisis management to genuine prevention. Having worked at the front end of social housing for almost two decades, I welcome the recognition of the present Government that stable housing is the foundation of public safety. Instead of papering over the cracks, decisive action is now being taken. This includes decriminalisation: the Government have officially repealed the draconian Vagrancy Act, treating rough sleeping as a vulnerability requiring support, not a crime. Secondly, there is a strategic blueprint, guided by the national plan to end homelessness, which introduces a landmark duty to collaborate, legally compelling prisons, probation services and local councils to co-ordinate before a prisoner is released.
However, breaking this cycle is not about demanding more taxpayer money. There are powerful, resource-neutral changes we can make tomorrow by replacing red tape with common sense. First, we must permanently ban Friday releases, which dump vulnerable people on to the pavement just as council offices close for the weekend, stranding them until Monday. Moving discharge dates to mid-week costs nothing but saves lives. Secondly, we must ensure “day-one readiness”. No prisoner should cross the threshold without a valid ID, an active bank account and a pre-processed universal credit claim ready to go. Finally, we should scale peer-led mentoring models, training serving inmates as housing advisers inside the estate to manage paperwork before release. This is not about funding; it is about rewriting a broken system.
Providing a roof to a prison leaver is the necessary cornerstone of justice and public safety. I welcome the Government’s progress, but I have a couple of questions for my noble friend the Minister to clarify some critical challenges. First, how will the Government ensure that local councils are fully resourced to transition prison leavers from temporary, 12-week emergency placements on to permanent, secure social housing so that we can permanently close the revolving door? Secondly, will the Government rapidly implement no-cost, structural reforms such as ending Friday releases and mandating day-one ID readiness to stop people slipping through the bureaucratic cracks?
Baroness Bakewell of Hardington Mandeville (LD)
My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Farmer, on securing this debate on a subject which I know is dear to his heart. It is also important to me. Both of us spoke to amendments in debates on the Social Housing Bill around the difficulties of housing ex-offenders. Much depends on how long the offender has been in prison, whether they are still in touch with their family, whether they are likely to secure employment and, not least, their mental health.
The Library has produced an extensive brief for this debate, and the noble Lord, Lord Farmer, has provided startling statistics. In 2024-25, approximately 1,000 prisoners a month were released from prison without anywhere to stay and went on to sleep rough, as has already been said. It seems that the early release scheme, introduced in 2024 to reduce the prison overcrowding, has not always been implemented in a satisfactory fashion but hurriedly, with little preparation made for accommodation provision.
An ex-offender released with nowhere to go on their first night is likely to sleep rough. This means a shop doorway, a traditional bus shelter—not a modern one—an empty, derelict property or even a park bench. This might seem acceptable on a short-term basis with weather similar to that we are currently experiencing, but not if it is November or January, raining and with temperatures well below those to which they have been acclimatised in prison.
Those who have served long sentences may have become dependent on the prison routine and feel anxious about being released and how to cope outside. It is no wonder that, on release, some engage in criminal activity in the hope of being rearrested and returned to an environment which will both house and feed them and where there will be company of sorts. If it were a choice of sleeping rough in the middle of winter or returning to prison, I feel I might choose the latter.
The role of the local housing authority is absolutely key to ensuring that appropriate accommodation is provided to ex-offenders on the day of their release. There are of course probation hostels, which, provided they have capacity, can cover up to 12 weeks.
Young men and women on release will want to rebuild their lives. Offenders commit crimes and arrive in prisons for a variety of reasons, not least of which might be their inability to communicate effectively, read or write, or understand basic maths. If there is sufficient capacity within the allocated prison, these skills can be acquired alongside qualifications to help gain employment on release. But accommodation will be the stepping stone to set them on their way. The elderly may have served long sentences and not be equipped for life without support. Can the Minister say how many prisoners who are released are over the age of 70?
I turn to those on remand. Once they come to trial, some may be found innocent and released from court. Does the Minister have figures for how long the average stay on remand is? There are also those who are found guilty but whose sentence is such that they have already served it on remand and so are released straightaway. How many, once they come to court, are released without further imprisonment? These figures are not currently included in published figures. Nevertheless, this group will need help with housing as well as other support to rebuild their lives.
The duty to collaborate with local authorities is part of the national plan to end homelessness and support those who are in crisis. Local authorities have strategies to house the homeless, but it is not easy. There are also charities and agencies whose aims are to support ex-prisoners on their release. It is, however, vital that they are given sufficient notice to allow them to find the relevant accommodation. It is extremely disappointing that the duty to collaborate has not yet been implemented. Can the Minister say when this is likely to happen—and please not say “shortly”? Without this measure, some ex-offenders will continue to have nothing but sleeping rough to look forward to.
I look forward to the Minister’s comments at the end of this important debate.
The Lord Bishop of Manchester
My Lords, I too thank the noble Lord, Lord Farmer, for securing this important debate, not least because it brings together two of my long-term concerns—homelessness and the rehabilitation of offenders. I declare my interests as the chair of the Church Housing Association and as a trustee of the Clink Charity, which works within and beyond prisons.
Homelessness is both a cause and a consequence of offending. Breaking this cycle requires an understanding of individual vulnerabilities and a “whole community” approach to rehabilitation. Without long-term, joined-up thinking that provides prison leavers with the tools to live independently, prisoners are trapped in a cycle of reoffending. This undermines their intrinsic human value. From these Benches, I would add “their God-given value”. In St Matthew’s Gospel, Jesus notably refers to concern for prisoners as one of just a handful of criteria determining a divine judgment.
At the risk of repeating a cliché, prisoner rehabilitation requires a person-centred approach. It is a cliché that needs repeating, because all too often what we offer those leaving prison is a service-centred approach. The convenience of service providers and their organisational boundaries separate a human being into a series of disjointed attributes. They are homeless; they are unemployed; they are unskilled; they are unwell; they are unable to receive benefits in a timely manner. Different service providers then seek to respond to these distinct aspects, often in an ill-connected way. The person falls between the cracks. At the same time, the services that are provided in prison are too often separated from those provided outside.
All major life transitions are challenging, even if they are as welcome as being released from prison. If the transition into life on the out is not to lead to further offending, many of those released, especially those who have served sentences of more than minimal duration, will need accompanying over a period of months, if not years, by a consistent human presence, a trusted human presence, within and without the walls.
Homelessness is a deepening crisis. Recent Nacro figures show a 40% increase in the number of people released from prison into homelessness. People who leave prison are twice as likely to reoffend if they are homeless. Prisoners often lose their homes because they are unable to continue paying rent. Meanwhile, as the noble Baroness, Lady Gill, powerfully reminded us, releases on Fridays or otherwise out of working hours mean that support services are not immediately available. Who is immediately available is the drug dealer.
Prison leavers are left to fend for themselves in an unfamiliar world. Housing associations and other providers must be empowered to facilitate housing assessments while prisoners are still in custody and to identify those most at risk of falling through the cracks. They must be enabled to provide prison leavers with routes into stable accommodation and should be given adequate notice of release to allow them to do it effectively.
Housing provision is not much use if you cannot pay for it. The inability of claimants to begin a universal credit application while in prison pushes prison leavers into poverty immediately they are released. With the DWP more closely integrated into pre-release planning, prison leavers might be given the financial means to find accommodation from the day of their release. Not only would this better enable them to settle, it would leave them less tempted to reoffend in order to find the money to pay the rent.
While such measures could go a long way towards preventing homelessness in the short term, it is not enough to tackle the symptoms without addressing at the same time the root causes. To achieve lasting housing security, prison leavers must be given the skills, as other noble Lords have already said, to find steady employment and generate a reliable income.
The Clink Charity, where I serve as a trustee and with which the Minister is very familiar, provides training and rehabilitation support to people in prison or at risk of offending. Informed by their clients’ histories of trauma, unstable housing, exclusion from education and poor mental health, the Clink has now successfully trained over 5,000 people. It is a prime example of the joined-up working I am talking about. It means that prison leavers are treated as ends rather than means, and as people who are able to live lawful lives and make positive contributions to our communities. If any noble Lords want to know more about the charity, please come along to our flagship restaurant in Brixton Prison.
This debate gives us an opportunity to begin to shape what a more integrated provision for those leaving prison, especially the many facing homelessness, might look like. I know that the Minister has this very much in his own heart and I look forward to him responding to the debate in due course.
Baroness Hyde of Bemerton (Lab)
My Lords, I too thank the noble Lord, Lord Farmer, for tabling this debate and for his compassionate and evidence-based work over many years in this space to make our country safer and to improve the lives of all those impacted by the criminal justice system. The topic of this debate is a subject close to my heart as well, having spent part of my career working with people immediately prior to, on the day of, and following, release—known in the sector as “through the gate” work. I will focus most of my remarks today on women, because that is the bulk of where my professional experience lies.
As alluded to by the right reverend Prelate, the transition from prison to community is a tough one. Some of the people I have worked with have told me it was a tougher transition than going from the community to prison. It is made harder by a lack of supportive relationships with people not involved in crime, by complicated applications for benefits, by trying to ensure that you have the correct medication, by perhaps trying to ensure that you have the correct support for abstinence programmes—and then you might be met at the gates by your pimp or dealer. There is also the enormous social stigma that can last many years after your conviction and licence have ended. In the middle of all this is the question of where the person might sleep that night and on subsequent nights, which is crucial to determining future positive outcomes.
Noble Lords are well aware that the country is in a housing crisis and a prison population and capacity crisis. I am proud to sit on these Labour Benches and I support all that we are doing to address this, not least in the Social Housing Bill, which we will debate on Report on Monday.
Neither the prison crisis nor the housing crisis can be solved overnight. But, alongside the immediate actions that this Government have taken, I urge noble Lords to continue to use the privilege of being long-term incumbents to ensure that strategic and longer-term plans are laid, so that we are able to both prevent and solve women’s homelessness and criminal justice involvement.
I want to tell you about Hayley, who I worked with—unsurprisingly, that is not her real name. I met her a few days before her release from a prison located far from anywhere, as they often are, it seems to me. On the day of her release, we went on several bus journeys to save money, rather than using other forms of transport, to take her to probation, the drug and alcohol services and the homeless persons unit. There, we sat through a perfunctory questionnaire while it was rattled off—“Do you have pets? What is your local connection? Are you the victim of domestic abuse? Are you the victim of sexual assault? Have you ever worked in prostitution?”—as though these were perfectly normal questions to ask in a public council office.
We spent several hours there and through advocacy we were able to secure her somewhere to sleep that night. But the part of the borough where she had been engaged in prostitution was also the part of the borough where cheap B&B temporary accommodation was available, and that was what the local authority could afford. Therefore, after a very long day—we were on hour 10 or 11 by this point—we went with the keys to an address in the very streets where she had previously been living and working, using drugs and being involved in prostitution. I took her to this sparsely furnished room via Tesco to get a few bits and left her for the night in this very basic room with nothing more than a magazine and a box of cereal to distract her. I was not optimistic about how this was going to go, and it felt deeply unsatisfactory to leave her there. A decade later, as I recount this to noble Lords, I am still deeply unsatisfied by our failure to meet that woman’s needs and to keep her safe, even though it might have been regarded as a success because she had a roof over her head for the night.
I am sure that well-informed noble Lords across your Lordships’ House are keen to take a strategic view and, just as Marmot introduced the idea of the social determinants of health, noble Lords here can work on the social determinants of crime. In Hayley’s case it was childhood trauma contributed to by parental addiction, resulting in her own addiction, being groomed into prostitution as a teenager and living on the streets when she was not living in a prison.
There are many charities and local authorities doing good work in this space, and I urge the Minister to keep digging into that evidence and drawing on the resource available from local authorities. My former workplace, Islington Council, does amazing work finding solutions in this space. It has a Housing First officer employed by the council to meet prison leavers at the prison gate. They are co-located in the probation office to co-design their service. They have quarterly meetings with probation and, at the last rough sleeping count, nobody found rough sleeping in Islington had left prison.
I wonder whether the Minister has come across the Californian outfit Impact Justice, which, through its Homecoming project, has helped house 600,000 people leaving prison for six months using an Airbnb-style platform where hosts offer their spare room to the person being released. A scheme like that would ensure that another Hayley will not be left in a box room with a magazine and a box of cereal for company, with the whole system just crossing its fingers that it will work. We have to get this right. I urge the Minister to continue pursuing best practice, from local authorities and internationally, to meet this need.
Baroness Bottomley of Nettlestone (Con)
My Lords, I pay tribute to the many people who have spoken in the debate, with their direct and personal knowledge and commitment to this intractable issue: a subject that so often people do not want to know about. Above all, I pay tribute to the noble Lord for his steadfast and long-term commitment to people in prison, their relationships and their families, because so many relationships break down when someone goes to prison, and then the prospect of finding a home or work when they come out is all the less. I am only saying the obvious, but it needs to be repeated.
No one should complete a prison sentence, step outside and find the pavement waiting; we all agree that a prison sentence must never become a sentence to homelessness. But delivering that aspiration in practice is an intractable and complex problem. Partnership between prisons, probation and local housing authorities is essential, but it is not sufficient. The voluntary sector plays a vital role. So many of us are going to refer to different voluntary sector projects. The Clink is quite remarkable, and I must quickly declare my interest as I think my firm once found one of the chief executives, and I got to know them extremely well. The voluntary sector can act flexibly and swiftly to provide innovative solutions. The voluntary sector can sometimes take steps that are unpopular with the public, whom, if you are an elected body, you have unfortunately to satisfy.
The official figures should disturb us profoundly. In the year to March, only 84% of prison leavers were housed the night following their release. Nacro calculates that more than 12,000 people a year leave prison homeless or are rough sleeping, which is more than 1,000 people every month. Of course they are not just statistics; they are people leaving custody, frequently with little money, addiction, medical vulnerabilities, fragile or non-existent family relationships and no place to go.
I appreciate that the Government have said much to suggest that they are signed up to this agenda. We are all realistic about the pressure on public funding and the difficulty of taking the public with us, and I am sure nobody more than the Minister fights the corner in private, whatever he can say to us in public.
I wonder when the Minister will feel able to publish specific accommodation and reoffending outcomes for prisoners released early. This, of course, is an extra complicating factor. The comment about not releasing people on a Friday is so often said, but when will it be delivered? A form passed from one public body to another does not, I am afraid, keep somebody off the streets. Practical steps have to follow. The Inspectorate of Prisons reports that many establishments still release 20% to 30% of prisoners without a settled address, and the independent monitoring boards describe release preparation as “alarmingly inadequate”. What further reassurance can the Minister give us that there will be improvement in this field?
Homeless Link, another voluntary body working directly with people experiencing homelessness, offers practical answers—I always like those. They are: first, assume that every prisoner is at risk of homelessness until demonstrated otherwise; secondly, begin planning early; thirdly, complete housing applications inside prisons; fourthly, bring all the relevant agencies together before release. But more must be done, and I want to commend to the Minister a charity that I have come to know very well.
The issue for many is that when they finish the 84-night statutory stay, there is a critical window. If the prison leaver cannot overcome practical financial barriers, they may still leave temporary accommodation for the street. Small grants released quickly for deposits, identification documents, essential furniture or travel can make all the difference. I wonder how many people in this House know about Greater Change. Does anybody? Greater Change is a thrilling, pioneering charity started by Jonathan Tan when he left Oxford 10 years ago. It provides small grants through the care workers to help prisoners and others at risk of homelessness, and it is obsessively evidence based. It is quite remarkable. When I first heard of this charity, I thought: “That is exactly what needs to be done”, because it reinforces the value of the trusted front-line worker who assesses whether the individual is worthy of the project or can justify it, and then it raises the money to provide these grants.
Greater Change is currently proposing a £10 million programme that would enable personalised budgets to support more than 5,500 people leaving custody. It would evaluate housing stability, progression from CAS3 into settled accommodation, engagement with probation, employment outcomes, reoffending and savings across the criminal justice system. I do not want to test the Minister’s patience, because he has very kindly met MM McCabe from Philosophy in Prison, but I really hope he will find a chance to meet the team from Greater Change, who are as good as those at Emmaus and the Forward Trust. We all need to work together to deliver this agenda.
The Lord Bishop of Newcastle
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Farmer, for bringing this topic to our attention today, and I pay tribute to him for his tireless work in this area of concern. It is an honour to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Bottomley.
The north-east, where I live, offers both encouragement and challenge to the theme of our debate today. HMP Northumberland, Northumberland County Council, the probation services and voluntary organisations, which we have already heard quite a lot about, have developed strong partnerships to improve resettlement. Those partnerships deserve recognition, but they also raise the important question of how we are assessing their effectiveness. Success should not be measured simply by whether a referral has been made or a duty fulfilled. It should be measured by outcomes. As other noble Lords have asked, did someone leave prison with suitable accommodation? Were they still housed weeks and months later? Did they avoid rough sleeping? Were they able to access healthcare, treatment for substance misuse and, where appropriate, employment and training? Those outcomes are closely connected. Homelessness rarely exists in isolation. It intersects with poor mental health, addiction, unemployment and social exclusion.
Nacro’s recent report, Reducing Deaths Among Prison Leavers, reminds us of the human consequences. It found that people released from prison in the north-east are around six times more likely to die from a drug-related cause within two weeks of release than those released in the east of England. While the report makes clear that this disparity cannot be explained by homelessness alone, it underlines the importance of viewing housing as part of a wider resettlement pathway, rather than as a stand-alone intervention.
There is also a strong economic case for getting this right. Preventing homelessness at the point of release reduces pressure on emergency accommodation, health services, the criminal justice system and local authorities. Stable housing provides the foundation on which recovery, family relationships and employment can be rebuilt. Without that foundation, the risk of reoffending and repeated crisis raises significantly. Partnership working should therefore be viewed not simply as good practice but as a sound investment in safer communities, better public services and better outcomes for individuals seeking to make a fresh start after prison. Early release makes this even more challenging because it compresses the time available to co-ordinate housing, healthcare and community support. That makes effective partnership working more important than ever. Organisations such as the Oswin Project in Northumberland, with its excellent café in Newcastle Cathedral, show what can be achieved when employment support, mentoring and rehabilitation are integrated with housing. But these initiatives depend on timely planning and sustained collaboration.
Nacro has called for a clear plan to halve by 2029 the proportion of people leaving prison who are homeless. I hope the Government will not only pursue that ambition but set out how success will be measured. What indicators will be used to assess whether partnership working is preventing homelessness and rough sleeping, and how will outcomes be monitored for those released early? How will examples of effective practice, such as those emerging in the north-east, be identified, evaluated and shared more widely?
Ultimately, the measure of success is not whether agencies work together but whether people leaving prison are able to rebuild stable, healthy and productive lives. Can the Minister ensure that any measures around the effectiveness of partnership working include regional outcomes, so that we can understand both what is working in areas such as the north-east and where further support might be needed?
Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames (LD)
My Lords, I too am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Farmer, for securing this debate on a very serious issue that involves a very real tragedy. We have heard that every month about 1,000 prisoners are released from prison directly into homelessness. The Question from the noble Lord, Lord Farmer, appears to start from the proposition that early release is an important contributor to homelessness. It may be, but I am not sure we have the evidence on that issue. We do know, however, that any release into homelessness has a very severe impact on released prisoners achieving reintegration. Indeed, it is almost self-evident that they will not, and the stark evidence that there is calls into question our whole strategy.
As my noble friend Lady Bakewell pointed out, the risks of release without a home to go to, away from warmth and company—such as it is in prison—are severe. Prisoners on release risk mental health breakdown and relapse into alcohol or drug abuse, and their risks of reoffending are magnified. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester referred to the “cycle of reoffending”. The noble Baroness, Lady Gill, also reminded us of the cyclical issues that follow unplanned release. Worse still, the risks of self-harm and early suicide are seriously increased by homelessness and rough sleeping. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Newcastle emphasised the regional differences on that.
The 31 May article in the Guardian by Jessica Murray, to which both the Library briefing for this debate and the noble Lord, Lord Farmer, referred, told the story of a young man released after serving a 19-month sentence for assault. He was found dead in a house after taking prescription medicines and smoking crack cocaine because nowhere to live could be found for him by the local authority.
Another man of 48 with no known mental health problems could not be found even emergency accommodation on release and was found dead in a woodland after having to sleep in a tent. Another 49 year-old died of a drug overdose five days after release from HMP Swansea with nowhere to live. It is vital that accommodation be found. My noble friend Lady Bakewell is right to emphasise the importance of local authorities in the improvement of release as part of the improvement of rehabilitation. The account from the noble Baroness, Lady Hyde, of Hayley’s experience shows how arrangements made by local authorities can fall far short of good practice.
I do not recite all these cases because they are dramatic, but because they are, or should be, at least in part avoidable. As we have heard, under the Homelessness Reduction Act 2017, prison and probation officers have a duty to refer anyone to local authorities if they are likely to be made homeless within 56 days. That means that preparing for prison release should happen early, as has been stressed by several speakers. There is a requirement for prisoners to give permission for such an approach to a local authority. I ask the Minister: what effect is that requirement having on the proper working of the scheme?
The noble Lord, Lord Farmer, asked about the new duty for prisons and local authorities to collaborate. How will it work in practice? What planning has been done to ensure that the collaboration is real and effective? Will that collaboration be sufficiently resourced? What steps are being taken within the Prison Service and by probation officers to ensure that foreseeable homelessness can be avoided? How much is done before release to ensure that all prisoners have somewhere to go?
The Prison Reform Trust advises prisoners to seek advice from housing advisers or offender managers in good time before release. Given the incapacity of some prisoners, their unwillingness, or even a misplaced optimism when they are soon to be released, what steps can we take to ensure that that advice is tendered in time? Is enough advantage taken of the option for governors to help prisoners pre-release, with payments made directly to accommodation providers for short-term accommodation when that is all that is available?
I will add two points that have come out of this debate. First, there seems to be unanimity that Friday releases must end. They are impractical, dangerous and cause many of these problems. Secondly, I know that the noble Lord is interested in seeking to find arrangements whereby the location of prisoners is suitable for their release. It is no good being released in the north-east if all your family contacts and prospects are in the south-west. Proximity of prisons to family contacts is of crucial importance.
Lord Ashcombe (Con)
My Lords, like all other noble Lords, I am very grateful to my noble friend Lord Farmer for securing this important debate. I thank him for continuing to draw attention to the vital link between successful rehabilitation and stable accommodation.
This issue sits at the intersection of housing and criminal justice. If we are serious about reducing reoffending, protecting the public and ensuring that people who have served their sentence can rebuild their lives, we must recognise that a safe and stable home is often the foundation upon which all other progress depends. A person leaving prison with nowhere to go is placed in an extremely difficult position. Without accommodation, it becomes harder to secure employment, maintain contact with the Probation Service, access healthcare or establish a stable routine. These challenges affect not only the individual but our communities and, ultimately, public safety.
The Government’s own figures demonstrate the scale of the challenge. As many other noble Lords have said, in 2024-25 around 1,000 prisoners each month were released and found themselves sleeping rough on the night of release. That is a deeply concerning outcome, and it raises serious questions about how effectively services are working together to support people as they transition back into the community.
This debate is not suggesting that the answer is simply to provide housing without expectation or responsibility. A Conservative approach is always to balance compassion with accountability and to believe in a firm but fair system. Prison exists to protect the public and punish those who break the law. However, punishment and rehabilitation are not opposing objectives. Successful rehabilitation is one of the strongest tools we have to prevent future victims of crime. That is why partnership matters. Prisons, probation services and local authorities all have responsibilities in helping prevent homelessness among prison leavers.
The duty to refer, introduced through the Homelessness Reduction Act, recognised that criminal justice agencies cannot operate in isolation from housing services. The question we must ask is whether those arrangements are working effectively enough in practice. Too often, responsibility becomes fragmented. One agency may identify a need, another may provide support, and a third may have statutory responsibilities. Yet unless those organisations are working to a shared plan, the individual leaving prison can fall through the gaps. That is particularly important when considering early-release arrangements. If the state decides to release someone into the community earlier than anticipated, there must be a confidence that the basic foundations of resettlement are in place.
There are three areas where a greater focus would be beneficial. First, intervention must begin earlier. Housing needs should not be considered only in the final days before release. For many prisoners, accommodation planning should begin at the start of the sentence, giving time to address issues such as previous tenancies, family relationships and support needs. Secondly, there should be stronger local accountability. We should be asking not only whether referrals are being made but whether they are resulting in sustainable accommodation outcomes. Thirdly, we should continue to support employers, charities—which, as we heard from so many noble Lords, are important—and social enterprises that help prison leavers return to productive lives. Stable housing and stable employment often go hand in hand.
Communities rightly expect that those leaving prison are properly supervised and supported. Effective resettlement is therefore not just about helping offenders but preventing further crime and making our streets safer. In that regard, I know that the Minister comes to this debate with significant background in this field. Through his work employing former offenders and supporting rehabilitation, he has long argued that people leaving prison should be given a chance to turn their lives around. The House greatly acknowledges the contribution he has made in that area. I therefore ask the Minister: what assessment has been made of the effectiveness of current partnership arrangements between prisons and local authorities? Does he believe that existing duties are sufficient, or are further measures required to ensure that no prisoner leaves custody without a clear and realistic accommodation plan? Preventing homelessness among prison leavers is not a soft option; it is a practical measure to protect the public, reduce pressure on public services and ensure that rehabilitation has the best possible chance of success. I look forward to the Minister’s response.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord Timpson) (Lab)
My Lords, I begin by thanking the noble Lord, Lord Farmer, for his Question, and for the opportunity to discuss these critical issues that are close to his and all our hearts. The noble Lord has long argued that, if people are to leave crime behind, we must make sure that support and stability, including a safe place to live, are waiting for them beyond the prison gates. I could not agree more. That does not just mean a bed and a roof, although that is important. It means much more than that: somewhere they can call home, feel safe, keep their belongings, receive a letter or register for a GP. Ultimately, it means somewhere they can start a new chapter in their lives. As the noble Lord, Lord Ashcombe, said, it is about dignity, stability, second chances and, above all, hope.
The evidence is clear. People released from prison without stable accommodation are more than twice as likely to reoffend as those who do. On the question from a number of noble Lords about Friday releases, progress has been made. It is a lot better than it used to be, but we still need to do more. The more stable the prison population and the way we do our releases are, the better that will become. However, it should not surprise us that it is extraordinarily difficult to rebuild your life if you do not know where you will sleep each night. That is why accommodation is an essential foundation for rehabilitation, but it is out of reach for far too many and there are no quick or simple fixes.
The first and most important thing we can do is to bring stability to the prison system. Too many offenders were trapped in a relentless cycle, locked up for short periods with little time to address their issues, released with no support and, almost inevitably, returning to prison. I am sure a number of noble Lords will have seen, as I have, people standing outside the prison gates with a plastic bag with “HMP” written on it, with a few pathetic possessions and nowhere to live that night. It is not surprising that they go back.
We are taking a different approach, built around supporting rehabilitation and reducing reoffending. We are already seeing results, with 75% of prisons and 90% of probation regions performing better. However, there is a long way to go and I am clear that we need to focus on what happens when somebody is inside prison and on what happens when they leave. As my noble friend Lady Hyde clearly said, Through the Gate work is vital, because preventing homelessness on release is not simply a housing issue; it is about public protection, rehabilitation and rebuilding lives. The example that my noble friend gave of Hayley shows just how complex it is, and also what a kind and generous person she is.
This is a challenge that the Ministry of Justice cannot solve alone; it is a team game. I am working closely with the housing sector and colleagues across government as part of our national plan to end homelessness. We inherited not just a prisons crisis but a homelessness crisis. Both rough sleeping in households and temporary accommodation more than doubled under the previous Government. This homelessness only reflects the wider pressures on housing across the country. Our national plan commits to halving the proportion of prison leavers who become homeless on their first night after release by the end of this Parliament, while increasing the number in settled accommodation after three months. There is a lot to do but they are important targets. All this is supported by record investment of £3.6 billion in homelessness and rough sleeping services. These are ambitious goals, but I am ambitious and I am determined that we will meet them.
As the noble Lord, Lord Farmer, has spent years helpfully reminding us, families can make an extraordinary difference too. For many people leaving prison, it is a parent, partner, grandparent or child who gives them the strength to keep going. Strong family relationships remain one of the most powerful protections against reoffending. We know that imprisonment also has a profound impact on families, especially children, so supporting families to maintain those relationships where safe and appropriate to do so is absolutely crucial. That is why almost all public sector prisons offer specialist services to support prisoners and their families, and we are updating our policies to help prisoners do even more to strengthen family relationships. Our incredible charities and voluntary organisations, such as Housing First and Crisis, do an amazing job and play a vital role in turning people’s lives around. I must thank the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester for mentioning the Clink. It is a brilliant organisation and I was sad when its project near Manchester, at HMP Styal, was closed—maybe it can get going again at some point.
I recognise the innovative approaches of residential community and charity projects, such as Hope Street in Southampton and Willowdene, which provide training, counselling, therapy and work opportunities all in one place—that is really important. I have not heard of Impact Justice in California, which offers a spare room for people who need it, but it reminds me of my childhood: people used to turn up at our house because my parents knew they did not have anywhere to live and would end up staying with us, sometimes for years. This is about stability, support and providing firm foundations for people to take their next steps. The noble Baroness, Lady Bottomley, mentioned the Greater Change charity—I know a little about it, but am very happy to find out more—giving small grants and small donations to support people. It often does not take much money to make a big difference.
We are making sure that nobody leaves prison without the best possible chance of making a fresh start. That begins with having somewhere safe to go and support from day one. As the noble Lord, Lord Marks, quite rightly emphasised, it is important that they get that support through the gate on day one. It means identifying housing needs earlier, improving information sharing and bringing prisons, probation and local authorities together well before someone is released, so that we are preventing homelessness, not responding to a person in crisis. We are already seeing excellent partnership working. Let me give one example: ID and banking administrators have been working in prisons for about three years now, to get everyone the documents they need. They work with the work coaches in DWP to get people on to universal credit so that they are good to go when they leave.
Too much still depends on where someone is released. A prison leaver’s chance of rebuilding their life should not depend on their postcode. I want people to receive the same high standard of support wherever they leave custody. They should be able to expect early engagement, a clear housing pathway and support that begins before they leave prison. We are using performance data to work out which areas need to improve and which areas are getting it right, so that we can learn from them. As part of this, we are working with MHCLG on new league tables which will show, by local authority, how many prison leavers end up homeless or rough sleeping on release. This will drive accountability and transparency, and I am pleased to announce that they will be published by the end of the year and then annually from next July.
We are piloting strategic housing advisory boards, along the same lines as the successful employment advisory boards I established a few years ago, to address the big systemic barriers prison leavers face when trying to find housing. As the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Newcastle said, it is about co-ordinating this partnership. The regional outcomes will help because we have regional employment councils, which I hope will help co-ordinate this work as well.
Alongside this, we continue to invest in accommodation support. We recently added more than 200 beds to CAS3, the service that provides up to 84 nights of accommodation support following release, but we recognise that some prison leavers face particular challenges in finding housing, especially those serving IPP sentences. We are investing in a new single accommodation service, which brings together support delivered through commissioned rehabilitation services and “duty to refer” pathways into a single digital service. This is a big shift—the equivalent of moving from the Yellow Pages to booking.com—but, if we get it right, this digital tool will improve information sharing and make sure we can match prison leavers to the right accommodation and support, so that no one reaches the prison gate only to find they have nowhere to go.
The noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, asked how many prisoners released were over the age of 70. As of 31 March this year, 2,180 individuals held in prison in England and Wales were aged over 70, which represents 2.5% of the total prison population. Published data is not currently available on prison releases by age band. I was asked about the average stay on remand. Unfortunately, we do not currently hold this data. If there are any other questions that I have not covered, I will write.
To finish, the national plan to end homelessness includes a commitment to introduce a duty to collaborate, and we will legislate for this as soon as possible. I fear that the noble Baroness, Lady Bakewell, will be slightly disappointed, because it will be when parliamentary time allows. However, we all recognise how important this is and we want to get on with it. This duty will compel public services to work together to prevent homelessness by identifying need earlier, intervening sooner and supporting people at crisis point.
As I said earlier, this is a team game. If we are to turn lives around and protect the British public, we need prisons, probation services, local authorities, housing providers, charities, families and communities all working together to make sure that everyone leaving prison has the opportunity of a safe, secure and stable home. This is about more than a bed for the night; it is about changing and even saving lives. Every prison gate should open not to homelessness but to hopefulness. On the possibility of fewer victims, safer communities and a better life, I thank the noble Lord for bringing this important issue before the House and I look forward to ongoing discussions.
Future Capability of the Armed Forces
(3 weeks, 6 days ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Harlech
To move that this House takes note of the future capability of the United Kingdom’s armed forces in light of the current international situation.
Lord Harlech (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have signed up to this debate. I am grateful that your Lordships are able to debate the United Kingdom Armed Forces’ capability shortly after the publication of the defence investment plan. I look forward to all contributions, not least that of the Minister and the valedictory speech from the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Southwark. I declare an interest as a serving officer in the Army Reserve.
Let us confront a single stark reality: the United Kingdom remains the third-largest defence spender in NATO, surpassed only by the United States and Germany. Yet NATO’s own internal assessments rank us 31st out of 32 members in delivering on capability targets, with only Iceland, which has no armed forces at all, sitting below us. This is the critical gap I intend to scrutinise—not the disparity between our forces and our adversaries, real though that is, but the profound disconnect between the funds we invest and the capabilities we can deploy. This is the gulf between the promise and the product.
Let me say plainly what this debate is not. It is not a party-political point. I belong to the party that was in government for 14 years and, for much of that time, we did not spend enough on defence. Many of us said so then, and I say it again now. I have no interest in a quarrel about who cut what a decade ago, or who is pledging what for 2035. The two great alibis of defence policy are the distant past and the distant future, and both are used to dodge the only question that matters: what are we spending now, and what will we feel tomorrow in the years in which we might have to fight?
Those years are not theoretical. Admiral Sir Keith Blount, who stepped down only this year as NATO’s Deputy Supreme Allied Commander Europe, DSACEUR, warned a fortnight ago on the “The General & The Journalist” podcast from the Times that Britain now risks losing influence within the alliance if it fails to deliver what it has promised. When our most senior recent commander at NATO says that in public, the Government should listen.
I give credit where the Motion invites it, on future capability. The strategic defence review was serious work, and I support its direction of travel. The best decision in last month’s defence investment plan is the one that looks furthest ahead—more than £5 billion for drones and autonomous systems, the largest such investment we have ever made. That is the right instinct. It is the lesson of Ukraine, where innovation cycles are measured in weeks. It is, in the Government’s own phrase, investing for
“the next war, not the last one”.
My concern is not the direction of travel; it is that £5 billion is not enough and that, when you open it up, the wider plan does not bear weight. Consider the headline of £298 billion over four years. It is a number designed to end an argument. But only around £15 billion is new money over last year’s settlement, and the Defence Secretary has acknowledged that most of that £15 billion is not for new equipment at all but for day-to-day running costs—keeping the ships and aircraft we already own available and our people trained. That is necessary, but it is not rearmament. It is paying to run the force we have and calling it the force we need. Is even that money real? Of that £15 billion, only around £10 billion is funded. The rest, some £4.7 billion, waits on a Budget that has not yet happened. That is not a funded plan; it is an IOU. The plan leaves the years from 2030 to 2035 all but blank, reaches 2.7% of GDP in 2027 and then flatlines. It funds neither the 3% promised for the next Parliament nor the 3.5% signed up to for 2035. Set against the threat that the Government’s own advisers place before 2028, this is a plan matched not to the danger but to the Treasury’s accountants.
My disagreement with the review centres on its approach to personnel. The proposal to expand our reserves by a mere 20%—even then, only when financial conditions permit—is far too cautious. Currently, we field just 30,000 trained reservists compared to 137,000 regulars, rendering our Reserve Forces only a fifth of the size of our regular military. In contrast, Finland, directly confronting the Russian threat, maintains a formidable trained reserve many times the strength of its modest regular army. My goal is far bolder: we must aim for a trained reserve that is not a fraction of our regular forces but three times their size. Achieving this will require a generational pivot, but it offers the only cost-effective way to restore the strategic depth this nation has neglected for far too long.
Numbers, though, are the easy part. I would not have the House think I am merely asking for a longer list of names. A reservist without equipment, training days and a drill hall to train in is not a capability, and here our record is dismal. The Public Accounts Committee found that the volunteer estate, the reserve centres on which all this depends, is in what the department calls “managed decline”. The reserve estate optimisation programme, REOP, has all but stopped. Tranche 1 was delivered, but the funding bid for tranche 2 failed and had to be rebid, and the department has still not secured funding for the phases beyond. Yet the department’s own evidence to that committee was that this estate is the critical enabler of the very reserve growth the review promises. We have written the ambition and declined to pay for the foundations beneath it.
This is the habit I most want the Minister to break. When budgets tighten, the reserve is always the first to be raided because it is dispersed and part-time and, sadly, too many decisions affecting it are taken by regulars. If the reserve is genuinely part of the first echelon, as the review implies, because our regular forces are so small, then it cannot also be the balancing item. You cannot ask a formation to be ready to mobilise while treating its training, equipment and accommodation as discretionary spending.
This matters most for the mission closest to home. Homeland defence and national resilience are not some additional burden for the reserve. They are its natural work. It is the reserve that is local, dispersed and embedded in every county. These are the people who would guard critical national infrastructure or reinforce the response to a flood, a cyber attack or an act of sabotage, drawing on their skills and experience from their civilian life. Every reserve centre we allow quietly to decay is a node of national resilience dismantled, and a link severed between the Armed Forces and the communities who must ultimately sustain them. If we are serious about resilience, the drill hall is not an overhead; it is infrastructure.
I add one further warning on the industrial base. Small and medium firms build the drones this plan celebrates. They are the least able to survive a Government who cannot make up their mind, and techUK warns that the delay to the publication of the defence investment plan has already forced firms in the supply chain to issue redundancy notices. You cannot switch an industrial base off and on. Once the engineers are gone, they are gone, and our allies see all this. The Public Accounts Committee has warned that the delay has damaged our credibility with the very partners the review tells us to put first. “NATO first” is good and the right doctrine, shared across this House, and I am delighted to see the noble Lord, Lord Robertson of Port Ellen, in his place. However, a nation ranked 31st out of 32 on NATO’s own scorecard is practising “NATO first” in the press release and “NATO last” in the plan.
I have three questions for the Minister. First, when will the £4.7 billion of unfunded commitment be confirmed and, until it is, why should the House treat this as a funded plan? Secondly, will the Government raise their ambition on the reserves well beyond 20% and will they fund the volunteer estate and the training and equipment on which such growth depends? Thirdly, given that the sharpest risk is placed before 2028, what capability will reach the front line inside that window?
I tabled this Motion not to embarrass the Government but because the distance between our words and our capability is now visible to our adversaries as well as our friends, and because the years in which that distance matters most are these ones, not some comfortable decade hence. We spend enough to stand third in the alliance. We should be able to field far more than 31st. The task is not to spend more in 2035. It is to spend well, spend diligently and spend now. I beg to move.
Baroness Carberry of Muswell Hill (Lab)
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Harlech, for securing this important debate. He speaks with great authority, particularly about the Reserve Forces. I agree with everything he said about that subject and congratulate him on his service.
I speak to employers and employers’ organisations who are keen to support our reserves. I take this opportunity to once again talk up the role of the voluntary reserve. They give us a continually refreshing source of capability and long-term resilience. They are central to our Armed Forces’ present and future capability to defend and deter, and they need to be nurtured. Employers need support to shoulder their share of responsibility. I ask the Government once again to continue to encourage more employers to take on reservists. I look forward to progress reports on the SDR’s medium-term aim of seeing the active reserve expanded by 20%, although I acknowledge that the ambitions of the noble Lord, Lord Harlech, go beyond that.
The subject of this debate raises huge questions about national priorities in an era of new external threats. Other speakers in this debate are far more qualified than I am to speak about matters of national security and war-fighting readiness, but I can comment on one essential component of national resilience: the role of the defence industry, which the noble Lord, Lord Harlech, already touched on. The future effectiveness of the UK’s Armed Forces depends in large measure on their access to platforms, munitions, cutting-edge skills and capabilities that match the challenge of modern warfare and deterrence.
The SDR said that the defence industry must play an indispensable enabling role. It said that our Armed Forces needed to be underwritten by a thriving and resilient industry, ready to scale and innovate. As we meet today, we are falling short of this ambition. The SDR called for changes in procurement practices. It said that industry should be partners, not clients, with companies engaged early in processes and rewarded for productivity and risk-taking. The Industry and Regulators Committee is currently looking at this. The evidence the committee has heard so far chimes with what I have been told separately by defence companies, and by the people who work for them and their trade unions.
Prime contractors have told me about their supply chain vulnerabilities. They have talked about problems in sustaining UK suppliers where they cannot provide predictability to smaller companies, and they are all too aware of MoD bureaucracy that stifles innovation and speed. This is fundamental to today’s debate. Down the chain of dependencies, the capability of the Armed Forces is tied to the strength of the defence industry’s sovereign supplier ecosystem. Safeguarding these small businesses is critical to national security and not a secondary consideration.
The SDR asked the MoD to develop a support package for industrial partners and remove barriers to collaboration. I invite the Minister to tell the House what progress is being made towards this goal.
In conclusion, I note with great joy today’s announcement of a new partnership with 35 universities to boost defence skills and research. I have met many graduates and apprentices in defence companies who tell me that their universities and schools did not encourage them to seek careers in the defence industry. I invite the Minister to take that back to colleagues.
Lord Stirrup (CB)
My Lords, the most obvious and urgent thing to say about military capability is that we have nothing like enough of it, either now or as currently planned for the future. This must be addressed as a matter of urgency but, in the limited time available to us in this debate, I want to make three points about the nature of those capabilities.
First, I warn against oversimplification when considering future force structures. Recent debate has focused on the need for much greater numbers of uncrewed and, in some cases, autonomous vehicles in all three environments—what are commonly but inaccurately termed drones. I agree with the general proposition, but such vehicles are not the solution to everything. Ukrainians have used them very successfully to make up for their relative shortage of front-line personnel, and we can certainly employ them to create more mass. They will be a key feature of the future force mix, but they will form part of the force structure, not the whole of it. It is crucial that we adopt transformational technologies, but we should not imagine that any one of them will solve all our problems.
Secondly, whatever capabilities we have at the start of any high-intensity conflict, they will not be sufficient to sustain our effort through to victory. Some, perhaps much of them, will be destroyed in the early fighting and will have to be replaced. At the same time, technological developments and enemy initiatives will force us to adapt accordingly. It is worth remembering that many of the capabilities the Ukrainians are employing so successfully against Russia today did not exist four years ago. Therefore, we will need an agile, innovative and rapidly scalable industrial base that can support such an effort—not just traditional defence companies but the high technology sector more widely. This will require a substantial and steady stream of investment over time to underpin the necessary research and development and, importantly, to attract the necessary private sector investment.
Finally, I warn against focusing solely on capital investment. Military capability requires not just the right equipment but the people who can operate it effectively in the most demanding and dangerous conditions. That means that both regulars and reserves need regular and rigorous training. Without it, we will be sending them into combat inadequately prepared for what they will face. This not only weakens our war-fighting effectiveness but exposes our people to unnecessarily high risk. This would be an act of criminal negligence.
Our training requires not just equipment but the fuel, the spares and the other support necessary for its operation. This is paid for by resource funding, not capital. Such funding is under pressure and, despite some rebalancing in the investment plan, it remains insufficient. Our people are already inadequately trained for high-intensity conflict. In-year pressure on the defence budget means that this will get worse. I understand that the MoD can do little about the problem in the current financial year, but I ask the Minister to assure the House that the position will be transformed in future years. The Government simply cannot go on failing our people and the country more widely in this way.
Most of what I have urged—I could have urged much more—comes down to funding. The settlement in the defence investment plan was inadequate and incoherent in the light of the commitment that the Government have rightly made to NATO. This failure endangers us all and it must be put right very quickly.
Lord Swire (Con)
My Lords, it is a very great honour to follow the noble and gallant Lord. I find myself in no man’s land, squeezed between a former Chief of the Defence Staff and a valedictory Bishop, so I shall try to navigate as best I can through what could be dangerous territory.
I particularly welcome back my noble friend Lord Harlech; it is very good to see him. He was sent to the scrapheap. The REME have got hold of him, reconditioned him and polished him up. He has come back to serve on these Benches and we will get a lot of usage from him over the coming years, of that I am certain.
I draw attention—not only because I need to under the rules of the House but because it is appropriate to our deliberations this afternoon—to my involvement with BOKA, a company dedicated to security and defence, aerospace and space, sovereign resilience, AI and quantum. I chair the investment committee of that company, which is involved in many of the technologies that we have been discussing and will continue to discuss this afternoon.
I listened carefully to what the noble and gallant Lord just said, and he is right. I suspect that many of the speeches this afternoon will dwell on similar topics to underscore the fact that there is a profound change in the economics of warfare. The demand from defence comes from changing defence patterns resulting from our most recent experiences in Ukraine and Iran—two very different military scenarios, but with some common themes.
We are now witnessing a rapid pace of newly iterating technologies and attributable systems. These act as force multipliers to defence forces that are struggling with recruitment, and they assist in combating new threats in both conventional war-fighting and in the grey zone, such as the cyber domain. As such, defence procurement must be more focused on annualised budgeting with agile deployment and testing. It must rely more readily on partnering with private capital not only to share the burden of finance but to assist with the proper due diligence of new technologies in quick time. Further, the larger, exquisite systems will require dedicated sovereign funds for longer-term procurement cycles, but the number of items procured is likely to fall over the next decade.
In conclusion, I remain unconvinced that we have properly addressed and adapted our procurement policy in a rapidly changing environment. We need to be smarter and quicker. Our Armed Forces need equipment now and simply cannot wait for long-term projects to be realised. The funding of this sea change, which is what is required, will require a change in Treasury thinking, without which none of the desired changes will be achievable. It also requires leadership from the new, as yet untested Prime Minister. Tackling the country’s economy and unsustainable welfare budget must be his priority, without which the Government will simply be unable to fund the spending on defence we need in order both to honour our international commitments and to ensure the safety of our own people.
The Lord Bishop of Southwark (Valedictory Speech)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Harlech, for bringing this debate. Let me begin my valedictory address by making it clear that it is not my intention to advise His Majesty’s Government on the number of dreadnought battleships they should be laying down or what the future of the Blue Streak missile programme should be. I wish to address some wider issues that I believe are directly relevant to our future capability and which arise out of our current situation.
Quoting from the Global Peace Index 2026, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Norwich reminded the House during a debate on the Armed Forces Bill on 6 July that
“the world has continued its longstanding trajectory of deteriorating peacefulness”.
It has always been my contention that, since the UK left the European Union, the costs of our security, diplomatic efforts and cultural reach will need to rise, since we no longer benefit from the partnership and pooled resources that the union provides. Instead, our defence spending has stagnated and NATO is in difficulty, with the United States now in unpredictable mode. We are planning to reduce the Diplomatic Service, and the BBC and other major cultural players continue to make cuts.
I appreciate that, as we shall hear, a different trajectory is planned for UK defence. A good deal will be said about the changing nature of warfare in the light of the appalling assault on the territorial integrity of Ukraine by President Putin. However, the continued reduction in what we used to call manpower across all three services is worrying because, at the end of the day, fearful decisions need to be taken by human beings, and some situations should be addressed only by a human presence, not an AI-driven remote response. AI and drones are no substitute for physicality, presence and engagement.
It may seem strange to hint at a moral dimension in a business which is never decorous or happy, but the basis of international humanitarian law in conduct of war finds its origin in the Christian doctrine of a just war with its tests of necessity, proportionality and restraint. The Geneva conventions, our more elaborate and contemporary responses, were themselves born of fearful conflict and barbarity, not wishful thinking. Yet increasingly, in conflicts such as in Sudan, in the Russian invasion of Ukraine, and, I so regret to say it, in the manner in which Israel has responded to the Hamas atrocities of 7 October 2023, international law is set aside for reasons of expediency, and with appalling results and much innocent suffering, not least in Gaza. That is why the other issues I alluded to, such as the size and effectiveness of our diplomatic service, matter, and why good quality journalism matters, including British journalism and British values in the form of the BBC, to help uphold international rules, because when these become degraded, people suffer, and we all become less safe.
Finally, I wish to thank the House for the consideration given to the Lords spiritual and to me, for the great privilege of serving here, for the high calling of your Lordships and for the dedication of our staff, not least the doorkeepers, many of whom served in our Armed Forces. As someone who has led your Lordships in prayer at the beginning of business, I am reminded of the words of the noble and right reverend Lord, Lord Chartres, that “the largest party in this House is the praying party”. I give thanks for that and assure all your Lordships of my continued prayers.
Lord Ahmad of Wimbledon (Con)
My Lords, it is always a distinct privilege to rise in your Lordships’ House, particularly when the subject matter before us concerns the key priority of any nation: the defence and security of the realm in an era of unprecedented global volatility and conflict.
However, before I turn to our physical defences, it is my great honour to pay tribute to a defender of a different kind, one who has spent years fortifying the moral and spiritual armour of our nation. I refer of course to the right reverend Prelate—and my dear friend—the Bishop of Southwark, and I congratulate him on a poignant and reflective valedictory speech.
I feel immense warmth towards the right reverend Prelate and his neighbourly affection, for he is the person who is the spiritual guide for many of the good people of Wimbledon—indeed, he is the shepherd, as many remind me. I have always maintained that trying to guide people spiritually, especially when they are quite diverse, including the occasionally highly opinionated folk of south London, requires a level of tactical patience, strategic diplomacy and sheer resilience that would challenge any seasoned peacekeeping commander around the world. Yet, the right reverend Prelate has done so for over 15 years with quiet but effective diplomacy and, as we have seen again today, boundless grace and deep humility.
In this House, the right reverend Prelate has been a reassuring and welcome presence. He has never been one, as we have heard again today, to shy away from what I would call difficult issues. Indeed, over many years in the very place where the Minister sits, I was on the receiving end of his quiet but very effective challenges to the Government of the day. He has consistently championed the homeless, the marginalised, and a cause that we share and which is incredibly close to my own heart. I live by the mantra that the greatest test of our own faith is when we stand by and for the faith and belief of others. He has lived by that. We have stood together on many platforms advocating for human rights, and I have always been struck, as I have already said, by his gentle yet effective moral clarity.
While the Ministry of Defence has frequently struggled with its logistics at times, the diocese of Southwark has operated with enviable precision under the right reverend Prelate’s stewardship. It has proved, perhaps, that faith can not only move mountains but manage complex organisations. We worked together when the right reverend Prelate was the lead bishop on the issues of the Middle East, and again—I quoted that mantra earlier—he stood for justice, not just for Christians or for the Jewish community but for the Muslim community, and he addressed the challenges both in Israel and Palestine with equality and justice.
Together, we worked with Archbishop Hosam of Jerusalem, a friend to us both. I was proud to lead on the issue of Christian persecution, where the support of the right reverend Prelate and others on the Spiritual Benches was vital. I am sure that I speak for all in this House when I say that we will miss deeply his wisdom, his pastoral warmth and his profound service to this House and to the nation. We wish him every blessing for his well-deserved retirement, which is with our sincere prayers.
Turning back to earthly challenges, I thank my noble friend Lord Harlech—we will hold the “gallant” for a moment or two, but I am sure that it is something for the future—for tabling this debate and join the chorus welcoming him back. When I look at the international horizon, I am reminded of my own time representing our nation and our interests globally. As a Foreign Minister, one learns very quickly the value of diplomatic tact. However, as any seasoned hand will tell you, diplomacy is greatly assisted when the person whom you are negotiating with knows that you have something more formidable behind you than a beautifully drafted joint communiqué. In my case, it was my noble friend Lady Goldie. We were a double act often on the world stage.
However, on a serious note, we find ourselves surveying a world that is, to put it in our customary British way, “highly complex”. To our east, state-based threats are no longer looming but are real and are redrawing borders. In maritime lanes around the world, we see state and non-state actors operating with technology that makes some of our procurement processes look positively glacial.
This brings me to the capabilities of our own, magnificent Armed Forces. Our men and women in uniform are, without a shadow of doubt, world class. Their courage, their adaptability and their professionalism are second to none. I have seen their work on the ground and witnessed what they did in places such as Afghanistan. The only issue, as has already been highlighted in this debate, is that there are ever fewer of them. We have a Navy of sublime sophistication—the noble Lord, Lord West, is in his place—but, on certain Tuesdays, one wonders whether we have enough hulls to cover the water that we are legally obliged to protect and to fulfil our duties to the treaties that we are signed up to.
Our defence procurement has historically operated on a philosophy that I can best describe as bespoke tailoring. We do not merely buy a helicopter; we commission a flying work of art, hand stitched by many committees, adjusted for 32 different eventualities and delivered precisely three years after the conflict that it was intended for has resolved itself. The Government’s own SDR is so ably led by the noble Lord, Lord Robertson, who I am delighted is in his place and who chairs the International Relations and Defence Committee which I am honoured to serve on. He highlighted this very issue of procurement. Yet I want to be fair. The SDR and the welcome and final publication of the delayed Defence Investment Plan is a move forward and shows that we are waking up to the reality of the challenges that we face in 2026. We are investing heavily in cyber, space and AI, areas where a well-placed line of code can do the work of an entire regiment. This is commendable, as is the £5 billion for drones.
Yet you cannot deter a hostile frigate with a sternly worded PowerPoint presentation. At some point, hard capability must mean physical presence, be it in the Middle East or defending the Falkland Islands. We are a nation that prides itself on punching above our weight. It is a marvellous face, but without that punch behind it having the force of our Armed Forces, you eventually bruise your knuckles. Our friends, but more importantly our foes, are looking at us very carefully.
We have rightly stood together in unity on Ukraine. I commend the Prime Minister’s comments today in Ukraine and thank him for his service in that area.
Let us continue to work together, as my noble friend Lord Harlech said, in supporting government steps to modernise. However, let us do it with a healthy dose of reality and realism. Let us ensure that when we speak of deterrence, we are talking about forces that are ready to be deployed today, equipped today and sustained for tomorrow. We need the defence readiness Bill. When will we see that?
Our adversaries are not waiting for the next strategic defence review to conclude. They are acting. When it comes to peace, the pen may be mightier than the sword, but it would be incredibly reassuring for all of us, in a typically British way, to have a highly sharp, fully serviced and readily available sword in the umbrella stand, just in case we need to deploy.
Lord Hamilton of Epsom (Con)
My Lords, I join my noble friend Lord Ahmad in congratulating the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Southwark on his final speech. I hope he enjoys an excellent retirement and has every opportunity to go on worshipping God and doing his best to swell the congregations in our churches. I think he will find that easier when he is no longer encumbered by the necessary political compromises that have to be made in your Lordships’ House.
My noble friends have made the point that we do not have enough money for the defence budget, but nobody is asking why. A tremendous amount of money is being spent by this Government on welfare that is not achieving what it is intending. It is supposed to be lifting people out of poverty, and it is not; it is condemning people to poverty. There are enormous savings to be made in the welfare budget but, unfortunately, the Labour Party in the other place will not allow those reforms to go through. That has grave implications for our democracy, and I would be very worried if I were a member of the Labour Party. If it cannot fulfil its functions as a Government with the enormous majority that it has, one has to ask whether it would ever be worthy of forming a Government again. If I were in the Labour Party, I would be very worried about that.
This comes at a particularly unfortunate period in defence. There have been a lot of false forecasts of peace in Ukraine, but as the Ukrainians develop technology in the amazing way that they have and, with western help, develop longer-range missiles that can penetrate central facilities in Russia, I think we will eventually bring this conflict to an end. At that stage, NATO must ask who is going to fess up, come to the plate and say that they are prepared to help provide Ukraine with the essential security guarantees that it needs to ensure that Russia does not invade again. That is going to be a big test for NATO.
I look back to the Joint Expeditionary Force, which was established by NATO in south Wales in 2014. Two years later, two countries joined—Finland and Sweden—that were not members of NATO at the time. We could expand the Joint Expeditionary Force to become a nucleus of the coalition of the willing. I was on the NATO Parliamentary Assembly but was slung off when the Conservatives did so badly in the election. However, I gather from a former colleague that Poland might join the Joint Expeditionary Force. That would be very significant indeed; it would form the nucleus for a coalition of the willing that might be able to change the price of fish in European NATO, as we look to a future in which the United States plays a reduced role in defending European interests. You might have some sympathy with the United States when it reminds us that Russia has an economy smaller than that of Italy. It is therefore a great pity that we cannot properly fund our Armed Forces at this critical moment, when we should be setting an example to all our allies and not be laggards in the business.
Baroness Antrobus (Lab)
My Lords, I appreciate that this debate has already focused, and I am sure will continue to focus, on the challenges facing our Armed Forces—issues around funding, the defence investment plan and, of course, as the noble Lord, Lord Harlech, eloquently argued, the role of our reserves. I declare an interest, as my husband is a reservist.
However, in the context of a strategic defence review that put NATO first, and a defence investment plan which headlined our NATO commitment as its first priority in stepping up UK leadership, I want to focus on our Armed Forces’ nuclear deterrent capability. Sir Adam Thomson, former UK permanent representative to NATO, gave evidence to the Joint Committee on the National Security Strategy on Monday and made an important point that I wish to amplify in this Chamber.
The UK is one of only two European nuclear powers, and the only one that has committed its nuclear capability to NATO. In the DIP, our Government set out their key investment commitments, including to the UK nuclear deterrent. The plan committed to over £20 billion more investment in the defence nuclear enterprise over the next four years, compared with the previous four, to modernise the UK’s nuclear capabilities and the facilities that deliver them, including new submarines. This is a commitment that contributes significantly to European deterrence against our adversaries.
It also recommitted, following the original June 2025 announcement, to joining NATO’s dual-capable aircraft nuclear mission. This will see the Royal Air Force, in the form of the acquisition of F35A combat aircraft, returning to the airborne nuclear role it relinquished in 1998. In the last 12 months, I have reconvened some of our now-retired RAF “Cold War warriors” from the Tornado, Jaguar and Nimrod aircraft forces to distil lessons from that era. Although there are many differences—the weapon will not be a UK weapon, the technology has changed vastly, and the likely readiness commitment will be significantly less—there is also much to learn from the past. I, of course, say that as a history scholar.
The Chief of the Air Staff and the Chief of the Defence Staff have both talked about the need for the RAF to rediscover its “nuclear IQ”. Those who joined the RAF during the Cold War were fully aware that they were joining a nuclear-armed force and that they might be stationed at a nuclear-armed base, regardless of their branch or trade. Now, the RAF is constituted almost entirely of personnel who joined after the Cold War, during the era of wars of choice. Similarly, politicians and the public have lived through the decades of expeditionary warfare.
This future airborne capability—the theme of today’s debate being, of course, future capability—will add an important rung to the escalation ladder. As the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup, wrote in a recent paper, co-edited with Daniel Skeffington,
“the stronger …the ‘ladder’ … – through the possession of credible capabilities on a sliding scale between small arms and strategic weapons – the stronger the deterrent effect”.
To conclude, there are many challenges facing our Armed Forces, but I hope that my noble friend the Minister will agree that we should find, in Sir Adam’s words, “fresh ways” to emphasise the importance of our nuclear deterrent to the UK and to our NATO allies in Europe.
Baroness Helic (Con)
My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend Lord Harlech on introducing this debate. I join other noble Lords in wishing the right reverend Prelate the best for the future and in thanking him for his work and his valedictory speech.
I begin by commending the Lord Speaker’s lecture, delivered by the noble Lord, Lord Robertson, yesterday evening. I encourage all noble Lords to read it, if they have not already. He posed a fundamental question: is Britain really safe? His answer was very clear: the threats that we face are real, they are growing, and meeting them will require urgency, resilience and sustained national resolve.
Our Armed Forces, regular and reserves, remain among the finest anywhere. But the question is not the quality of those who serve but whether they are being given the equipment, support, resources and training they need. The strategic defence review, led by the noble Lord, Lord Robertson, recognised that Britain is responding to an immediate and growing threat, not preparing for a distant possibility. The Government’s acceptance of the recommendations is welcome. The challenge remains delivering on them at the pace that the security environment demands.
The Prime Minister has warned that Russia could pose a direct challenge to NATO before the end of this decade, a view echoed by NATO’s secretary-general. If that is the Government’s assessment, procurement and investment must reflect it. Yet some priority capabilities are not expected until the early 2030s. Every delay narrows our margin for deterrence.
The war in Ukraine has reinforced enduring lessons. Technological advantage remains essential, but so are ammunition, logistics, industrial capacity and the ability to sustain operations over time. Tomorrow’s technology cannot compensate for today’s shortages. Deterrence depends on forces that are trained, equipped and ready and on a resilient defence industrial base. Production cannot be expended overnight, skilled workers cannot be created in a crisis, and supply chains cannot be rebuilt once conflict has begun. Industry needs confidence that government decisions will be timely, consistent and backed by long-term commitment. As the noble Lord, Lord Robertson, has warned, we are running out of years. If the threats are accelerating, our response must accelerate too.
National security is not solely a Ministry of Defence responsibility. It also depends on a resilient energy supply, secure communication, cyber resilience and the protection of critical national infrastructure. Defence is now a whole of government and whole of society responsibility, requiring an honest conversation with the British people about national preparedness. Our allies will judge us, and our adversaries will too, not by the quality of our reviews but by our ability to deliver them. Britain’s influence rests on credibility, demonstrating that when we identify a threat, we have the resolve and the means to respond. Preparing for conflict is not about expecting war but preventing it. The stronger our deterrence, the less likely it is to be tested.
I have several questions for the Minister. First, what concrete steps are being taken to accelerate the implementation of the strategic defence review so that delivery matches the urgency of the threats we face? Secondly, how will the Government ensure that our Armed Forces have the equipment, munitions and industrial support they need before the end of this decade rather than after it? Thirdly, what are the Government doing to give the defence industry the confidence to invest in skills, production and innovation so that it can respond rapidly in a crisis? Finally, when will Parliament see a credible pathway to defence spending that matches today’s security challenges and enables the ambitions of the review to be realised?
Britain retains exceptional Armed Forces, world-class intelligence services, innovative defence industries and alliances that remain the cornerstone of our security. We understand the threats we face, and we know what we must do. The question now is whether we will deliver in time.
Lord Craig of Radley (CB)
My Lords, much has been said in recent months about the possibility of a Russian conflict with NATO. Such a war will be deterred if we and our allies react to strengthen our weak arms posture now. NATO’s potential military, economic and technical strength far exceeds that of any potential adversary. The challenge is to ensure that this strength is credible, visible and ready to deter any prospect of open conflict. Such determination must be led from the top of Governments. For the UK, a clear graph of intended progress to 3% then 3.5% is required, not ring-fenced with any “if fiscal conditions allow” type caveats of uncertainty.
As it takes two to tango, the assessment by the potential aggressor of their own warlike capabilities and chances of strategic success matter. If Russia were that opponent, what is there to learn from its fight with Ukraine? Far from being what was expected, namely, a quick conquest of Ukraine and a change to a Russian-subservient Government in Kyiv, the Ukrainians, after great difficulty and challenge, are now able, with much NATO help, to hold Russian advances and operate far into Russia itself, to Moscow and St Petersburg as well as into Crimea and elsewhere. Maybe Putin sacked some senior commanders for bringing him only bad news. Maybe their successors rely on holding their posts by reporting only good news from the front. Maybe Putin even feels that all adverse results reported reflect western propaganda and so cannot possibly be true, but what he feels and believes is what will drive him on.
While much of Putin’s available forces are fighting in Ukraine, there is much more uncommitted, with advanced capabilities in missile and maritime offence. Sub-conflict measures are already occurring and increasing in dangerous ways. But faced by a strong NATO alliance, would Russia believe it could wage and win a war of conquest, not just with arms but to achieve political mastery? One judgment might be that without the latter, the incentive to go further than sub-conflict measures may exist only if the NATO alliance appears to be weakening or even breaking apart.
While there are differences between last century’s Soviet belief in the worldwide spread of communism and today’s Russia, we learned from our spy Oleg Gordievsky of the Kremlin’s abiding view that NATO is an aggressor from its perspective. Since 1949, NATO has moved from the original 12-country transatlantic alliance to one of 32 that has grown and reached eastwards to the very borders of Russia, from its far north all the way down to Turkey—far too close to Mother Russia for its own sense of security. Now, NATO’s strong support of Ukraine and the US assault on Iran, with the expectation of NATO help, must only further alarm the Kremlin’s paranoia about NATO, so real and abiding tensions exist. It may not be possible to ease such confrontation in the military domain, but more might be done with arts, culture and sporting events to ease the existing tensions, and Putin is not immortal.
Lord Sherbourne of Didsbury (Con)
My Lords, a week ago in the Times, Andy Burnham wrote that
“increasing our national security … will be my first priority”.
It made me ask: does he really mean this? This Government have had loads of top priorities. The current Prime Minister has said:
“Growth is the number one priority”.
The noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, told the House that the
“absolute priority for the Government”
is
“to have a water Bill”.—[Official Report, 6/1/26; col. 1046.]
The noble Baroness, Lady Twycross, disagreed: she told this House that “making creative careers accessible” was the Government’s “key priority”. I have a whole dossier of number one priorities tossed out by government Ministers, all utterly meaningless.
I have to ask myself: does Andy Burnham mean what he says? Is he really going to give a cast-iron guarantee that service chiefs will get the equipment and resources to meet our NATO commitments? Is he really prepared to make the money available, and for domestic programmes to take the hit—and, if so, which ones? In the annual spending round, Ministers have to pit the claims of their department against the competing claims of other departments. If one department is always to get its way, you would no longer be evaluating its bid for more money. By the way, which departments win and which lose does not always depend on a rational evaluation. It also depends on who has the political weight in the Government and the Cabinet.
I hope Andy Burnham means what he says and will throw his weight in support of defence, but that will mean standing up to his Back-Benchers, which the current Prime Minister has failed to do, most notably on welfare reform. He needs to do it. We have had warning after warning from the noble Lord, Lord Robertson of Port Ellen, about this. We are highly vulnerable to Russia on the warpath, not just potential military attack but attacks on our domestic infrastructure that could bring down our energy networks, our banking and financial systems and the day-to-day life of the whole country.
Andy Burnham becomes Prime Minister next week. We will eventually have the opportunity to question and challenge the new Government in this House. The House has great respect for the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, so I very much hope that the Defence Minister in this House in the new Government will still be the noble Lord.
Lord Empey (UUP)
My Lords, I join with the noble Lord, Lord Swire, in welcoming the fact that the noble Lord, Lord Harlech, has been recycled; the value of that is before us this afternoon. We have talked repeatedly about percentages of GDP to be spent on defence. I do not like the concept of percentages of GDP. The amount of money you need to spend is what you need to spend, and some artificial percentage does not make much sense. We need to re-evaluate that.
I was fortunate enough to be present when President Zelensky came into this building in March. I attended the meeting in Committee Room 14; many noble Lords will have been there. He had a big screen and a laptop, and he was able to show us in real time what was happening on his own battle-front: what was coming in and what was going out. There were four other laptops in Ukraine that were doing the same thing. Most of us went to that meeting on the understanding and acceptance that he presumably wanted more money or more ammunition. No—he was selling at that meeting, not begging. With his colleagues, he has developed a wartime economy. He has been agile and innovative, not simply for commercial reasons but out of sheer necessity to survive.
The noble Lord, Lord Robertson, started his lecture last night by mentioning that we are not engaging in a meaningful conversation with the general public on what confronts us. This is not a political thing; the noble Lord, Lord Harlech, opened the debate with that point. This goes back 40 years, to the end of the Cold War. We were all very happy, whether we were Ministers or whatever, to spend the money on things that we felt were important—non-defence matters such as education, welfare or health. We were all happy to do that and all allowed it to happen, so we are not throwing stones here, but we need to recycle—in our own minds, and in the minds of the general public—the issues that confront us now.
I do not believe that Putin’s tanks will roll up Whitehall or that his submarines will come up the Thames—although most of us would hardly notice if they did. The fact is that we do not have the right mindsets. We need to engage with the public to educate people on what we are confronted with: the damage that can be done to our infrastructure, such as the undersea cables on which so much of our wealth and commerce is dependent. Hardly a day goes by when we do not have a photograph in the paper of some ship or other that has been decommissioned or is laid up in a port somewhere. It is not good enough. We have to start a conversation, and I hope the new Prime Minister will do that, because we have to get the people onside. Unfortunately, that means difficult choices. We will have to rethink the post-Cold War spending profile and begin to get our heads around the fact that we face an enemy driven not by logic but by ideology.
Lord Risby (Con)
My Lords, this debate is particularly timely as the Farnborough International Airshow begins on Monday. We do indeed live in a volatile and dangerous age, but there is no Member of your Lordships’ House who cannot recognise that, over time, our influence on the world stage has been reducing. At the heart of this has been an anaemic economy and an insufficiently sizeable and focused defence budget.
Nowhere is the lack of direction more glaring than in the space domain—the very central nervous system of modern high-intensity warfare. Instead of accelerating our surveillance satellite programmes, a new plan cancels critical narrowband communication networks. By failing to secure our own space infrastructure, our future forces will risk being dependent on non-sovereign networks controlled by external providers. Furthermore, our approach is drifting. Space resilience is heavily cited in official documents but remains entirely unfocused, lacking specific variable requirements for system recovery and capability generation. Worryingly, we are falling critically out of step with the United States, which has made a fundamental conceptual shift towards an offensive space control mindset.
The strategic defence review called space
“a domain that is central to warfighting”.
Indeed, rapidly increasing congestion in space means that there are now 16,000 satellites compared with 3,000 five years ago, and 100,000 are expected by 2030, offering nefarious actors more opportunity to conceal their activities. In the context of the international environment, space can no longer be viewed merely as an enabler of other domains. It is a critical war-fighting domain and the backbone of our critical national infrastructure.
Underpinning developments in fifth generation warfare is the role that space-based assets play. This is important, particularly as digitalisation increases, delivering precise navigation, instant communications, global surveillance and early missile warning systems. Without space-based assets, co-ordinating fast-paced multidomain operations and combined arms manoeuvres becomes very difficult. The recent defence investment plan announced that the incoming Skynet 6 narrowband satellite system would not proceed. Cancelling Skynet 6A will have a demonstrably adverse effect. This is so disappointing when many in the industry felt that, for three years, the significance of this had been understood clearly by government.
By contrast, if we want a model of a country that has really understood the challenges, we turn to Poland. It is investing 4.5% of its GDP into hard and visible capacity, helping to create greater defence capability from the Baltic to the Black Sea. Even Germany, casting off the Merkel inheritance, is projected to spend more on defence than France and the United Kingdom put together, without the huge debt situation in both countries. Recently, I had the chance to learn all about this by talking with government officials who are in Poland. What was spelled out was impressive yet depressing, because this great success has arisen from fiscal and pro-business policies which had stimulated growth in the private sector. For us, the lessons are obvious.
Lord Forbes of Newcastle (Lab)
My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Harlech, on securing this debate, which is essential to the future of our country. I thank him for his service, as I thank all our Armed Forces volunteers for theirs. I associate myself with many of the comments he made in his opening remarks.
I begin with a simple truth: the world has already changed, but our defence capabilities have not kept pace. The threats we face are no longer neatly divided into war and peace, foreign and domestic, military and civilian; they are hybrid, continuous, complex and aimed at undermining the very resilience of our society. Across Europe and beyond, nations have recognised this shift. Finland’s total defence, Sweden’s civil military integration, Israel’s Home Front Command and Singapore’s multi-pillar resilience doctrine all demonstrate one lesson: the defence of the nation is no longer the job of the Armed Forces alone; it is a job for the whole of society. Our Armed Forces remain world class, but they are being asked to do too much with too little in systems designed for a different era. We cannot meet today’s threats with yesterday’s structures. With the winds of political change in the air, I want to argue for three radical shifts.
First, we must build a whole-of-nation resilience—not a patchwork of agencies or a set of disconnected emergency plans, but a statutory, integrated approach that brings together defence, civil contingencies, local government, critical national infrastructure and the private sector. Finland’s National Emergency Supply Agency shows just what is possible: strategic stockpiles, shared planning and clear duties on every sector. We need the same here: a UK resilience agency with real authority, real resources and real accountability.
Secondly, we must fuse civilian expertise with military capabilities. Our Armed Forces need engineers, cyber specialists, medics, logisticians and data scientists, but we cannot recruit and retain all of them inside the military. Other nations have solved this through dual-track service approaches, where civilians can be mobilised rapidly into defence roles that match their professional skills. I believe we should create a UK national reserve: a modern, flexible force that draws on civilian expertise, is trained for crises, both domestic and international, and is integrated into defence planning. That would be not conscription but a national capability-building exercise for every community and every nation in this country.
Thirdly, we must redesign command and co-ordination for the hybrid age. Israel’s Home Front Command integrates civilian protection directly into military planning, Japan’s self-defence forces train routinely with civilian disaster agencies, and Norway’s civil and military co-operation doctrine plans for peacetime, crisis and conflict. We need a UK equivalent: a joint civil-military resilience command, responsible for dealing with grey-zone threats, infrastructure protection and rapid mobilisation in times of crisis. It should sit alongside the military’s Strategic Command with equal status and a clear mandate.
If we are serious about future capability, we must stop imagining defence as something that happens over there. Cyber attacks, disinformation campaigns and the undermining of trust in institutions is all happening now to our people, our economy and our country. Our Armed Forces will remain essential, but they cannot and should not be asked to defend the nation alone. Modern threats demand that we build a system where every sector, every skill and every citizen contributes to the security and resilience of this United Kingdom. That is the scale of ambition we need and the future capability that our times demand.
Baroness Eaton (Con)
My Lords, I join with others in thanking my noble friend Lord Harlech for initiating this debate. This House meets to consider a question that goes to the very heart of our future national security. Just weeks ago, the Chief of the Defence Staff publicly stated that the United Kingdom is running out of time to boost its Armed Forces, and that our adversaries are definitely “raising the stakes” and risk “crossing a line”.
Let us be clear: this is not a distant, hypothetical threat; it is a present reality. Russia’s war against Ukraine has entered its fifth year; our critical infrastructure is being tested daily in cyber space and beneath our sea, and there is an assumption that the sustained decades of relative peace in Europe no longer hold. Meanwhile, the conflict in Iran has shown how trade routes can be easily disrupted and the prosperity of our nation threatened by the closure of vital international waterways that we might be required to help unplug. We must resist the temptation to treat defence policy as a matter of budgets and spreadsheets alone. To do so would be to diminish what is really at stake: the ability of this country to keep its people safe, honour its alliances and deter those who would do us harm.
This is a moment for not only ambition but candour, because the hard truth is that our war-fighting readiness has been degraded for years. It did not happen in a single Parliament and it will not be restored by a single spending review or investment plan. It is a structural problem and it demands a structural answer. The defence investment plan, which was published only recently, was meant to deliver the strategic defence review’s vision of a stronger Army, a hybrid Navy and a next-generation Air Force, yet even the Government’s own assessment points to a funding gap of billions of pounds in the years ahead, as decisions will need to be made about discretionary spending.
Even after the DIP, our defence spending will reach only 2.7% of GDP by 2027-28. This is a welcome commitment but, given that we have an objective to reach 3% in the next Parliament and 3.5% in “core defence” by 2035 to align with our NATO commitments—with no sense of where the money will come from—we are entitled to be concerned that our Armed Forces will be short-changed. Intentions and actual capabilities are not the same.
Of particular concern must be that the British Army now stands at its smallest size since the start of the Napoleonic Wars over two centuries ago. The Royal Navy is at its smallest size since the mid-17th century. We all understand and appreciate that the nature of warfare has changed and that size does not necessarily matter, but the ability to project power clearly still does. For all the technological advances promised in the DIP, mass will still count for something, and there are fears that here we are falling behind. We rightly welcome new investment in drones and autonomous systems, in the Dreadnought programme and in AUKUS. These are opportunities to modernise, to deter and to protect those who serve. Let us be honest, however: the scale of the challenge ahead means that we are beyond easy answers. Rebuilding warfighting readiness cannot happen overnight and requires a laser focus that has eluded us—by choice or by neglect—for generations.
Today, therefore, as we take note of the future capability of our Armed Forces in the current international situation, let us also use this debate as a moment of real scrutiny and ensure that we support whatever measures are required so that the men and women of our military have the capability, the equipment and the support they need to keep this country safe.
Lord Magan of Castletown (Con)
My Lords, I am very grateful to my noble friend Lord Harlech for initiating this debate. I declare my interest: my grandfather was a soldier, my father was a soldier, my brother was a soldier and my son was a soldier. My son Edward, a captain in the Irish Guards, saw active service in the second Gulf War in Basra, Iraq, and subsequently served with Special Forces in Afghanistan.
The noble Lord, Lord Coaker, widely respected on all sides of this House, has spoken movingly about members of his own family who served the Crown in conflict. He will recognise, as all serving families necessarily have to, the traumas of uncertainty, apprehension and fear, hoping the telephone is not going to ring, which are part and parcel of such family involvement and commitment. One does not forget those days of such very considerable anxiety. Yet, once again, we face the prospect that our own forces will find themselves increasingly on a front line where technology is changing the character of warfare at the fastest rate in history. The UK is woefully and inadequately prepared for the challenges now likely to be faced. Starmer’s Administration have comprehensively failed to meet their responsibilities for the very necessary further rapid enhancement of the defence of the realm.
It is all the more notable that the noble Lord, Lord Coaker, has presided with increasing exasperation over the extensive debates held in this House on the June 2025 strategic defence review and, subsequently, the long-delayed defence investment plan, which certainly has not, as was promised, delivered a vision of warfaring readiness and transformation over the next 10 years and beyond. In fact, the delayed publication of the defence investment plan in June this year was so poorly received that it led to the immediate resignation of John Healey as Secretary of State for Defence and of the Defence Minister Al Carns, who said that the defence investment plan was
“not built for the threat we face. It is neither transformative … nor sufficiently funded”.
That is a damning indictment of a wholly inadequate, much-delayed priority policy requirement.
Further, Al Carns asked, what will Putin do? When Russia finds itself cornered, it escalates. I believe that Russia will escalate horizontally, sending drones over a NATO country, daring the alliance to respond. We are on the brink of serious conflict, in which the lives of our service men and women are going to be lost, maybe at scale. Responsibility for such potentially disastrous procrastination, prevarication and indecision lies fairly and squarely with outgoing Prime Minister Starmer. The dangers now have to be faced rigorously. There is no time to be lost by incoming Prime Minister Burnham.
First, the total funding package of £15 billion, one-third of which is unfunded—heinous fiscal legerdemain—is woefully inadequate. The Chief of the Defence Staff has made it clear that £28 billion in extra funding is the minimum requirement, committed and delivered on time. Secondly, under the current plan, we will be spending just under 2.7% of GDP on defence in 2030; 3% was the target. John Healey, the outgoing Defence Secretary, has said that we need a target date for 3% and a
“clear, credible funding plan to meet our NATO commitment of 3.5% … by 2035”.
Thirdly, it must be remembered that, at the height of the Cold War, we were committing 5% of GDP to the defence budget. We can do it, but this Labour Administration’s priorities need to be straightened out fast. Fourthly, it is essential that the £10 billion munitions plan is reinstated. It is necessary to rebuild our munitions stockpile, now much depleted, particularly after the war in Ukraine. So where are you, Mr Burnham? Do not keep hiding. Come out and face the music. Show now that you truly have the mettle needed for equipping our forces—
Captain of the King’s Bodyguard of the Yeomen of the Guard and Deputy Chief Whip (Baroness Wheeler) (Lab)
I am sorry. Will the noble Lord wind up, please?
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Harlech, for securing this debate. The level of engagement on a Thursday afternoon shows the interest in your Lordships’ House. The debate has been particularly useful in that, unlike nearly all the discussion in the other place and in the media, it has not just focused on, as the noble Lord, Lord Harlech, framed it, “What are we spending?” but rather on “What are we using defence and security money for?” Is it on capabilities that make us more secure, or is it driven by imperatives of private profit or pride?
There is one form of defence spending to which I want to draw attention and to question. It is one that noble Lords who are regular Tube users here at Westminster Station will know. As we descend the escalators, we are confronted by, blared at by, a shiny advert for BAE Systems. Future jet fighters; Navy capabilities: the subject occasionally varies, but, for the seven years that I have been in this House, that prime and no doubt very expensive advertising spot has been permanently occupied by BAE Systems. Ultimately, of course, the cost of that no doubt very expensive, endless advertisement, directed at a small number of Tube users—parliamentarians and officials—is part of our defence budget. But it is not, I suggest, spending that makes us any safer.
I thank the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Southwark for, in his valedictory speech, introducing another point that I want to make: that our security is about much more than defence. Soft power, diplomacy and the international service provided by the BBC World Service are crucial, and all this together needs to be treated as a package. Last week, I put to the noble Baroness, Lady Chapman of Darlington, that the FCDO was in turmoil and the noble Baroness denied it fervently. Well, this morning, I was on the picket line in King Charles Street with PCS members who are FCDO staff, expressing their anger and fear about the turmoil—and that very clearly is an accurate word—in the department. That is a workers’ rights issue, disappointing to all there in the light of having a Labour Government, but it is also a security issue for us all.
I will pick up another point, from noble Lords on the Conservative Benches, who have suggested that the welfare budget must be cut to allow for more defence spending. Yet we have also heard, occasionally from the Conservative Benches and from around the House, about the most basic defence resources of all—human capability and human will. The foundations of our welfare system were laid after the Boer War, with an awareness that child poverty and general deprivation meant that many young men were unfit to serve. If people have not been cared for by society and have been left without the basic resources to live decently, while they see the few—the “have-yachts”—harvesting the resources that might have been sustaining them, that is not going to build the will, let alone the physical capability, to stand up to the threats we face.
On defence procurement, as noted by the noble Lord, Lord Ahmad, we have huge problems with the tradition, established over decades, of commissioning works of art, and, I would add, making decisions for economic rather than military reasons. We often heard from the previous Government—there are similar hints from the incoming one—that they used defence spending as a form of economic development funding. But that risks doing two things badly, rather than focusing on the activity that is supposed to be the spending’s purpose.
Lord Mott (Con)
My Lords, it is a great pleasure to take part in this debate, which was secured and opened so powerfully by my noble friend Lord Harlech. I begin by referring the House to the register of interests, in particular my support for the charity Ukrainian Action, which provides humanitarian assistance, recovery and reconstruction in Ukraine. When you visit Ukraine, you see first hand not only the destruction caused by Russia’s illegal invasion but something else: I saw a country that continues to innovate, to manufacture and to adapt, despite fighting a war for its very survival. That resilience deserves not only our admiration but our attention, because Ukraine is no longer simply a recipient of military assistance; it has become one of Europe’s foremost centres of defence innovation, as highlighted earlier by the noble Lord, Lord Empey.
One of the defining lessons of this conflict is that innovation has become a strategic capability in its own right. Modern warfare is no longer determined solely by who possesses the most sophisticated equipment, but increasingly by who can improve it most quickly. Ukraine has demonstrated an extraordinary ability to shorten the cycle between identifying a problem on the battlefield, developing a solution, testing it under operational conditions and rapidly scaling production. That culture of continuous innovation is something all Ukraine’s allies should be studying carefully. I believe that Britain has much to learn from Ukraine, and Ukraine has benefited from our support.
That is why I believe the next phase of our partnership should place greater emphasis on defence industrial co-operation. The United Kingdom possesses one of the world’s leading defence technology sectors. Alongside our established defence companies, we have innovative SMEs developing autonomous systems, artificial intelligence, advanced manufacturing and electronic warfare capabilities. These businesses have enormous expertise to offer, yet many tell us that procurement remains slow, that barriers remain high and that opportunities to work alongside Ukrainian partners are often more difficult than they should be. Of course, there must always be appropriate safeguards around defence exports, technology transfer and national security. No one would argue otherwise, but speed has become a capability in its own right, and procurement systems designed for peacetime must continue to evolve if they are to keep pace with modern conflict.
Ukraine is already moving in this direction. Earlier this month it expanded its drone deal framework, creating long-term partnerships centred on joint production, technology transfer, industrial co-operation and significantly faster approval processes for participating partners. More than 20 further countries are now in discussions on joining similar arrangements.
At the same time, only this week the European Union announced a new defence industrial partnership with Ukraine, recognising that it is no longer simply receiving capability but helping to shape Europe’s future defence industrial base. Our defence industry has much to contribute. Can the Minister update the House on what discussions the Government have had with Ukraine about establishing a similarly deep defence industrial partnership with the United Kingdom—one that enables greater collaboration between British defence technology companies and Ukrainian partners and supports faster technology transfer, joint production and defence exports where appropriate—including the status of the ongoing negotiations for the UK to join the drone deal?
Ukraine continues to defend not only its own sovereignty but the security of Europe. It also demonstrates remarkable ingenuity, resourcefulness and technological innovation under the most difficult circumstances imaginable. We should continue standing with Ukraine. We should continue learning from Ukraine, and we should build with Ukraine.
Baroness Stuart of Edgbaston (CB)
My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Harlech, on initiating this debate. I apologise for starting with something that he might feel he left out, because I am inviting this House to remember 1968. Quite a number of us will remember it, but I am not sure how many noble Lords will remember where they were on 21 August 1968 and how they felt that day. I do remember. I lived in a small Bavarian village, about 80 miles from the Czech border. The Soviet Union and Warsaw Pact countries started to invade Czechoslovakia, and the tanks started rolling. We did not know if the tanks would stop at the border, but we listened to the World Service as the one reliable source of information. We did not need to be persuaded that defence was important or that there were bad actors out there, or that at some stage people would have to give their lives to defend our values and what we stood for.
Today we are discussing the future capability of the Armed Forces against a slightly different backdrop. We should remember that the Armed Forces do not exist in a vacuum. They are part of a whole society and need its support, because true resilience requires a complete approach from every sector. It also means that if you spend more money on defence, then you forgo spending on other things. Military capability requires an underpinning of soldiers and the right equipment, and I am sorry to disappoint the noble Lord, Lord West, because I am not asking for more ships, even though I am an Honorary Captain in the Royal Navy. However, maritime resilience is also important.
I am glad that, if the papers are to be believed, we are starting a national resilience campaign and that later this year the Government will hold the largest national home defence exercise since the Cold War. There will be new guidance for schools and colleges to teach children how to stay safe in emergencies. As an aside, after we knew that the tanks had stopped rolling at the Czech border, in those days, between finishing O-levels and getting the results, you did training on what to do in the case of nuclear attack or how to administer first aid, and general resilience training. That taught me that this does not require a single conversation. We have been promised a national conversation. It cannot be a one-off exercise because the public conversation has to be ongoing.
I also urge that we stop assessing risk, based what we think we can afford. It has to start with what the real risk is. Unless we have defined our national values and can protect them, we cannot defend or protect our national interests. We need to ask where our food, energy and medicine come from. I am very taken by the suggestion from the noble Lord, Lord Forbes, of pulling all this together.
The threats are real, not imaginary, and they are here now. We said we were going to be war-ready by 2029, but we have not explained to the public in a way they can fully engage with why we need to be war-ready by 2029. I am therefore asking the Minister for a long-term strategic plan on how we will engage with the public on an ongoing basis. Because we are an island, that kind of threat sometimes seems remote. We seem to think that bad things happen only to other people and somehow it will pass us by. We do not have that guarantee. We need public support for the Armed Forces and to be prepared to forgo spending on some things which we value, but we need to value defence even more.
Lord Altrincham (Con)
I thank my noble friend Lord Harlech of the Coldstream Guards for securing this debate and I thank the Minister for hosting us with such courtesy, as he always does.
I start by noting that the strategic defence review presented our defence position very clearly last year, but at that time made almost no commitments to expenditure and, fatefully, made just a reference to an ambition for 3% of GDP as being a kind of soft target. The Government at the time accepted all the recommendations of the strategic defence review, as noble Lords will remember. Notwithstanding their acceptance, it turned out that expenditure and the position of the public finances were central to the problem, and became central, alas, to the last Prime Minister’s fate.
We might ask how that came to be. Possibly rather unhelpfully for the Government, the OBR put out its financial sustainability report in July, which explains quite clearly that the public finances are on an unsustainable trajectory. That is because, as we know, and as we often talk about in this House, we are deficit financing the Government at the moment. The gap between the amount we raise in taxation and what we spend is very wide, and it is risky for the Government to be funding on that basis. We will be raising £150 billion of new money for the Government in debt this year, which is much more than we spend on defence, just in the current deficit. We are at quite a risky, delicate moment.
The need for defence arises at just the moment when the OBR points out that we are in no position to meet economic—or any other—shocks to public finances. It is a risky moment, not only because the Government are funding all the time in the government debt markets but because of inflation, the foreign exchange and growth. All of these factors lie well beyond this debate, but they place fundamental risk on us, just as the defence challenge does. It is very hard to know how we are going to fund defence in the next few years.
The Government have promised to consolidate the public finances by 2031 or so. That probably marks the limit of where deficit financing is going and the limit for the next Administration of what they can do. They cannot go much further than this promise of debt consolidation. By the way, that will still mean that we are deficit financing in the 2030s but just to a more modest level—but let us assume it is the limit.
Against that backdrop, the OBR took a look at what would happen in the coming years. Its approach was to ask why we do not just keep all the variables and expectations of public expenditure where they are and not change anything. This is not realistic, if you think about it. It accepts all the promises made on public expenditure as they are and expects all the spending on net zero, for example, to be unchanged.
The one variable that the OBR changes—which shows that the OBR itself is part of the national conversation about which the noble Baroness, Lady Stuart, spoke—is that it talks about the need for defence. It says that defence spending is likely to pass 3.5% of GDP in the early 2030s and may go to 5%. At 5%, defence spending in the UK would be similar to where it is in Germany today, all of which is to say that it is completely unsustainable and completely unknown, and a degree of change will have to come. The clue for that change is in this national conversation.
I end by saying that this is a moment of opportunity for the Government, where we could restart a conversation on public finances and defence at the same time.
Lord Bruce of Bennachie (LD)
My Lords, I join everybody in thanking the noble Lord, Lord Harlech, for introducing this debate and for the non-political way in which he did so. Across the whole debate and from all sides, we have recognised that the threat is real and our preparedness is inadequate—that is the message we are getting across.
In the fourth century AD, Vegetius said,
“si vis pacem, para bellum”—
if you want peace, prepare for war. That is precisely the point of deterrence. Our Armed Forces, as everybody has said, are highly professional and a credit to our nation. However, the peace dividend has left us seriously depleted in numbers and capability. As a number of Members have noted, the Government have talked about starting a national conversation, as did the strategic defence review—but where is it and what is it? Denmark has established a Ministry of Resilience and Preparedness and, as the noble Lord opposite said, other countries have engaged in preparing something like this. We have talked about it but we are not doing it, so can the Minister give us an indication of exactly when this will happen?
Preparing the public requires engagement. Recent YouGov polling showed that three-quarters of Britons consider it “important” to strengthen both the UK’s hard and soft power, including approximately four in 10 who rate it “very important”. However, only a minority favour tax increases or spending cuts to fund greater spending on the British Armed Forces. That is what we need to engage in. I am very grateful to the right reverend Prelate for his excellent speech—we shall certainly miss him—and for raising the issue of soft power, which is absolutely relevant.
The International Relations and Defence Committee—of which I am a member alongside the noble Lord, Lord Ahmad, and which is chaired by the noble Lord, Lord Robertson—had an evidence session yesterday, in which I raised the issue of the cuts not just to soft power but to our diplomatic presence, in the wake of our aid cuts. I suggested that removing our diplomatic presence from across the world is not the way to protect our interests, which is what we are actually doing. Sir Matthew Rycroft, a former British ambassador and a former Permanent Secretary, was one of our witnesses. He said that
“diplomacy is more cost-effective than development, and development is more cost-effective than defence. One of the reasons why the aid cuts are so short-sighted is that they will end up costing us a lot more in the long run”.
Other witnesses echoed that and said that we have emerging powers around the world with which we need to engage. This is one way to reduce our defence risk and to engage support.
A helpful briefing from the Library has indicated the problem we have with strengthening our Armed Forces. That was an important point that the noble Lord, Lord Harlech, raised. The Baltic and Scandinavian countries have got the balance right in a way that we have not: they have strengthened their reserves. A point has been made to me, although I am not a technical expert, that suggests, ironically, that the great sophistication of modern defence technology makes it much easier to operate—there is a black hole in there that you may not understand, but you can press the right buttons and you get results. That suggests that we can train many more people as reservists in ways that would be effective, which seems to be a real priority, as well as building civilian capacity for other crises. Russia will target our infrastructure—it is probably already doing so—and we need to have people across the country who know how to respond to that. That is a very important point that we need to address.
If you take the hardcore of the Budget, a huge chunk of it is going on updating our nuclear capacity—as the noble Baroness pointed out—on the AUKUS submarine project and on the Global Combat Air Programme. All those things are important, but they are very expensive, and that is squeezing out money that could go to other sectors. We need more warships, drone capacity, ammunition, missiles and ballistic missile defence. The question is to what extent we can deliver all those things. Yesterday, I asked: if we are going to phase out our warships, battleships and destroyers, what is our line of defence against ballistic missiles? That is the only defence we have at the moment, and “We’ll think of something” is not a good enough response—we need to know. The British public assume that we have such a defence, but the reality is that we will not if we do not replace the destroyers or find some other way of doing it.
I want to be positive. I know that the Minister will say what we are doing, and I will not dispute it: “We are building frigates, drone support ships and amphibious vessels”. All of that is good and essential. I do not want to suggest to the Government that we do not recognise that they are doing things, but, nevertheless, we need to deliver a lot of things very quickly. We cannot assume that we will not come under direct attack, as Russia probably regards the UK as its number one enemy and will exploit any perceived vulnerability. A debate such as this is a clear advert that we are vulnerable.
Everybody is saying that we could face an attack within three years. Is anything we are doing now equipping us to be able to counter such an attack? At the moment, I think the House feels fairly insecure that that is the case. The outcome of the Ukraine war is crucial, but how that will affect the UK needs to be assessed and countered. What key developments of home defence do we need to develop, as well as supporting NATO? As long as Ukraine is holding out, it is holding Russia back from other adventures that it would like to have.
A few weeks ago, I took part in an IPU visit to Lithuania. We were left in no doubt about the determination of the people of Lithuania, and of all the Baltic and Scandinavian states, to defend their freedom. They took us to the former KGB prison in Vilnius to show us the horrors they suffered under 50 years of Soviet occupation and their resolve never to suffer again. They have a defence budget of 5.5%. They know what the threat is and they are determined to maintain their freedom—but they know they need our support too.
We went to the Belarusian border and saw the fence erected not for defence but to counter Belarus’s actions. It is taking immigrants, whom it is recruiting from central Asia and Africa, to the border and forcing them across in order to disrupt society in democratic states. It is a ploy. It is advertising cheap flights to come to Russia or Belarus from wherever you are and have a good life. That good life consists of being put at gunpoint in a truck and forced over the border into the EU, where the immigrants will be deported. That is a pretty shocking situation and is, in effect, a state of war.
Knowing what we do of Russian activity around our shores and its hybrid and other interventions in our territory, it is clear that our deterrent and effective strength need to be increased. The question to the Government is: how fast can we move? How do we engage the public in a way that enables us to take decisions and take them with us? Will the Government consider defence bonds—this idea came from the Liberal Democrats, but has now gone wider—as one way of raising short-term funding? I completely accept that bonds are still borrowing, but if they are ring-fenced and targeted, it might be done in a way that the markets find acceptable and release money that might not otherwise come into the public sector. That seems a legitimate matter for consideration.
The Government will change on Monday. The new Prime Minister will have a whole raft of stuff on his doorstep. I was also at the meeting with Middle Eastern ambassadors—I think the noble Lord, Lord Ahmad, was there too—who expressed their concern that our new Prime Minister seemed to be highly focused on domestic issues and not terribly engaged in international issues. The honest truth is that we do not know, but they were concerned that this was an indication of an inward-turning UK, reinforced by our diplomatic retreat, soft power cuts and Brexit. All those things are giving the impression that the UK is not serious about our international relations.
I am not suggesting that the Minister, or the other Ministers who engage in this, are not serious, but when you look at what we are doing, it does not stack up as a credible strategy for a country of our standing. We have had respect in the world and we have influence, but we are not using or playing to them very well and there is a lot more we could do. NATO is the pivot of our alliance, but we need to explain to people not only that we are here to respond to an attack on NATO but that we have the capacity to defend ourselves, with or without NATO, from the attacks that we are told we will face in two or three years’ time. In his response, the Minister needs to give us an indication of how the Government will address this, take the public with them and ensure that we get where we need to be as fast as necessary.
Baroness Goldie (Con)
My Lords, this has been an excellent and fascinating debate, with hugely perceptive contributions. I thank my noble friend Lord Harlech not only for securing the debate but for his insightful and powerful contribution, made in a characteristically elegant and gracious manner—which I do not promise to emulate.
The Government’s defence policy can be summed up in four words: too little, too late. It is too little money and too little equipment, all delivered too late. I make that claim because the plans the Government have laid out are for the future; they do not meet the threats we face right now. The NATO Secretary-General has warned that we may face war with Russia within the next five years. If that happens, we need to be ready to fight a major war by 2030, not after 2030. I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, that I know the advertisement to which she refers from BAE Systems above the escalator in the Tube station, but, unlike her, my view is: what an advert for British skills, and what a formidable capability this terrific British company is capable of delivering. May I see it translated into our defence capability before too long.
On the Secretary-General’s memo, the Government seem to have missed that point. Indeed, the noble Baroness, Lady Stuart, reminded me—poignantly, because I remember where I was in August 1968—that the invasion of Czechoslovakia caused shock. As she rightly pointed out, you cannot assess risk on the basis of what you can afford. Risk is there, threat is there and the duty of the country is to have the wherewithal to counter it.
Where are we? The Minister for Defence Readiness and Industry, Luke Pollard, confirmed in a Written Answer that there will be no new deliveries of F-35s until the early 2030s. The integrated air, space and missile defence operations centre, announced in the defence investment plan as the future ballistic missile defence system, will not be operational until the early 2020s. The Type 91 uncrewed missile platform announced in the defence investment plan has no planned in-service date, and the only timeframe the Government can offer is “from the early 2030s”.
There is a pattern emerging. Virtually everything in the defence investment plan will not materialise until well into the next decade. The vital new equipment required by our Armed Forces right now will not be ready in time, and the Government simply do not get the urgency and the immediacy with which we need to rearm.
Last week, in front of the House of Commons Defence Committee, the noble Lord, Lord Robertson of Port Ellen, who obviously is one of the Government’s own, said:
“Quite simply, we are running out of years. The reality is that the challenge is now bigger, more serious and earlier than we had anticipated, yet the defence investment plan does not come up to it”.
His concerns were emphatically endorsed by the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup, and reflected upon gently and philosophically by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Southwark, to whom I also extend my best wishes for a happy and fulfilling retirement. I extend my thanks to him for his reassuring presence on those Benches, to which I often direct a glance at moments of tension.
The defence investment plan was supposed to do two things: prepare our Armed Forces for major combat operations within the next five years, and end the uncertainty and unease dogging our defence industry over the last two years. The noble Baroness, Lady Carberry, eloquently described the challenge. However, instead of allaying all those fears, the defence investment plan, unbelievably, made things worse. We have been left with less clarity as to the Government’s plans for defence than we had previously.
Take the Royal Navy, for example. The DIP confirmed that the Government will scrap the Type 83—the replacement for the Type 45 destroyers—and scrap the new light class of frigate, the Type 32. Yesterday, my noble friend Lord Minto mentioned the common combat vessel. This is the proposed replacement for both the Type 83 and the Type 32. The Type 83 was in the concept phase of its development. It was supposed to be the centre of the Future Air Dominance System, which had its outline case approved but has now been scrapped without a successor. We know absolutely nothing about these common combat vessels—how much they will displace, what armaments they will have, how many sailors will be required to crew them. We have no detail. It is a phantom concept, a ghost ship.
What was the MoD doing in the past year while it was preparing the defence investment plan? If it was planning to replace the Type 83 and Type 32 with the CCVs, one would have thought that it would have done more preliminary work so that when it published the DIP, it could tell us what a common combat vessel would look like. The suspicion is that the MoD did not decide to scrap the Type 83 until very recently. In September, in response to a Written Question from my honourable friend Ben Obese-Jecty, the Minister, Luke Pollard, said:
“The Type 83 is planned to enter service from the mid-2030s and is assumed to have a 25-year service life”.
So just last September, the MoD was committed to the Type 83s, but now it has changed its mind. It is frightening.
Let me express a caveat. This concept of a hybrid Navy deserves a word of caution. I am increasingly concerned that the lessons from Ukraine are being overlearned. We seem to be moving in a direction that assumes that drones and automation are the answer to every question of future capability. However, Ukraine is not the same as the north Atlantic. Providing a carrier strike, escorting supply ships, fighting piracy and defending a naval taskforce from air attack has no parallel with the Ukraine conflict. What of hard defence diplomacy, which the Government have said they are championing and to which my noble friend Lord Ahmad astutely referred?
An uncrewed missile barge does not have quite the same clout as a large, highly capable destroyer. I completely understand the benefits of uncrewed vessels and aircraft. They have their place and we must learn from their use in Ukraine. However, they should be additional rather than an alternative capability. They should complement destroyers and fighters, not replace them. We will need conventional warships for years to come. Yet, under these plans, Britain will have no destroyers at all by 2040.
I hope that the Minister will understand that my unrelenting and unapologetic focus is on the threat that we face now and the urgent response that is needed to address it. I am trying to impress upon the Government, as far as I possibly can, that the mid 2030s is, quite simply, too late. We know the threat. Sadly, we can predict the conflicts. We need more F35s, more modern Typhoons, more helicopters, more drones, more warships, more missiles, more tanks, more armoured vehicles and more air defence—and we need them as soon as possible.
The noble Lord, Lord Robertson of Port Ellen, delivering the Lord Speaker’s Lecture last night, to which many of us were privileged to listen, quoted Warren Buffett:
“Predicting rain doesn’t count; building arks does”.
This was a wise man quoting a wise man. Let me conclude by quoting a third wise man, Shakespeare:
“Defer no time, delays have dangerous ends”.
That is my message to the Minister. I look forward to his response.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Lord Coaker) (Lab)
My Lords, it is a great privilege to respond to this debate. I thank everyone for taking part and I will try to respond to many of their points. I start by declaring an interest: my son-in-law is currently mobilised as a reserve, so I just make your Lordships aware of that.
I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Harlech, on introducing this debate, on the way he did it and on his own service. We all recognise the importance of that. He made the point that the Armed Forces, the defence of our country and our work with allies and friends is not a party-political matter, as the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, and the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, demonstrate. It is about how we challenge each other to deliver the best defence that the country needs. That is an extremely important point for all of us, and I am very grateful that it is the attitude across the Chamber.
I will answer some of the specific points from the noble Lords, Lord Harlech and Lord Bruce, and the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, then move to some other matters. It is important to say at the start that, although much of this debate has been about the future capabilities laid out in the defence investment plan—we can debate and discuss whether it has all the right measures in it to develop our future capabilities and the spending that we will need for them—the concern expressed by many in this debate is about the capabilities that we have now and how we will develop them. That is an interesting debate. I am going to commission the Ministry of Defence to produce a paper that demonstrates what we are doing now and what we intend to do over the next two or three years, and I will put a copy of that in the Library. That will help, because it is important for us to have concrete examples of the sorts of things that are being done now and the sorts of capabilities that the MoD and the Government are saying we will have in the next year, the next two years and so on—not only that but some of the changes that we need to make and things we need to do. That shows that this debate is making a positive contribution to the sorts of things that we are seeking.
I will point to many of the things that are happening, for those who watch and listen to our debates. A number of people have asked what we are doing about Russia at the moment. We have an aircraft carrier in the north Atlantic with F35s all over it and other things around it, deterring the Russians with our NATO friends and allies. What are we doing in the Middle East? RFA “Lyme Bay” is there with a Type 45 destroyer, preparing itself for the reopening of the Strait of Hormuz, I hope. A noble Lord mentioned the Baltic states, and we currently have troops in Estonia. Others mentioned the nuclear deterrent. It is quite rightly being modernised at the present time, which is costing billions of pounds, but is a deterrent not only in Europe but across the world and it contributes to peace. All those things are going on at the current time.
We have Typhoons on quick-reaction alert, in case of incursions or threats to our airspace. It is quite right to challenge what needs to be done now and what should happen in the future. All I say in defence—this will be the only time that I am defensive about this—is that we ought to say to our adversaries alongside this, “We have capabilities that we are using at the present time to deter and to defend our people”. I know that that is accepted, and that there is a belief that we need to do more, but that is the challenge for the Government now and in the future. I hope that the paper that I will commission, a copy of which I will put in the Library, will help.
I come specifically to two or three of the questions posed by the noble Lord, Lord Harlech. He asked about the £4.7 billion gap, as I think he described it. The Treasury clearly confirmed to me, in preparing for this debate, that a further £4.7 billion will be confirmed in the 2026 Budget in a fair and balanced way. That is the information that I have had from the Treasury.
On the question of the ambition for the reserves, the noble Lord knows what is in the Armed Forces Bill currently going through your Lordships’ House. Investment is going into the infrastructure, training and equipment needed to support the reserves, and we recognise the importance of that.
I have answered the point about what we are going to do about current priorities. I think the paper will be of interest not only to the noble Lord, Lord Harlech, but to all of us more generally, particularly the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, and the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, as the Front-Bench spokespeople for their respective parties. As the shadow Defence Minister for His Majesty’s Opposition, the noble Baroness I think will find it very helpful.
I fundamentally agree with the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Bruce, that you prevent war by preparing for it. I do not like thinking that, but it is a crucial point. A national conversation is important, as a number of noble Lords have said, and soft power is crucial. I wrote the defence diplomacy strategy in the Defence Investment Plan, along with my department, and I shared it with the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, just before publication. It talks about the importance of soft power and developing those relationships with other countries, as well as hard power, of course. The idea that it is a choice—that you have one or the other—is nonsense. You have to have both alongside each other.
Lord Bruce of Bennachie (LD)
I appreciate that, and the Minister and other Ministers frequently say that, but the reality is that the British Council is nearly bankrupt, the BBC is struggling and our diplomatic forces are being reduced. On that particular point, can he feed back to the Government that, if we do not have diplomats on the ground, we are not able to influence the world?
Lord Coaker (Lab)
I will feed that back to the department. All I am saying is that there is now a much more co-ordinated, effective diplomatic strategy that links the Foreign Office and the Ministry of Defence together to deliver the objectives that the noble Lord wants.
The noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, made the point about immediate threats. I hope that putting a paper together and putting in the Library will answer the particular questions she asked about what we are doing about those immediate threats, as well as future threats. I say to her that there are difficult decisions to be made. She made difficult decisions when she was in government. This Government made the really difficult decision to replace the Type 83 and Type 32 with the common combat vessel. That will help develop the hybrid Navy that we will need, rather than continuing with vessels that we were advised by the military advisers will not meet the threat in 10 or 15 years’ time. To have a warship that can deliver drone capability, above the surface, on the surface and below, increases the mass available to tackle the threats we face. That is the hybrid Navy concept.
We had the debate and we said, “We’re going to get criticised, you know? They’re going to say, ‘There you go, you’re cutting ships. You’ve taken away this capability and that capability’”. All I would say is that, if I have to take some criticism by doing that with others, because we believe that opens up the opportunity to create the Navy we need, I am willing to take that criticism.
However, I fundamentally agree with the point the noble Baroness made that drones are not the only answer. Of course you need warships, fighter planes and land vehicles—all those things are fundamental—but, alongside that, you need the increased capacity of drones.
On being optimistic, I know that a number of noble Lords were at the retirement of Pedro Serrano, the brilliant EU ambassador to the UK, who said:
“The United Kingdom is one of the most important military powers in Europe with a very important defence industry. If we’re going to be successful, we will be successful together”.
I spotted that when I read the Financial Times, as I normally do in the morning, and I thought, “I’m going to use that”. I am not being sarcastic. In the article, he points to the fact that the UK has joined the €60 billion EU defence loan scheme for Ukraine. The noble Lord, Lord Mott, asked me what the Government were doing to open up opportunities with respect to Ukraine. There is one example that I hope specifically answers the question the noble Lord raised.
I thank my noble friend Lady Carberry for her points about the importance of the defence industry, Rolls-Royce and SMEs. She is absolutely right.
The noble and gallant Lord, Lord Stirrup, made a crucial point about RDEL and CEDL. He has made this point to me before. We made this point in the defence investment plan. I have the figures here. In 2026-27, RDEL was increased by £2.1 billion and CEDL was increased by £0.7 billion, so there was a significant uplift of RDEL rather than CEDL. Next year, it will be £1.6 billion compared to £1.2 billion. We absolutely accept the point about RDEL and CEDL, the necessity to focus not just on capital projects and the importance of resource allocation.
On the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Swire, about partnering more with private capital to try to do that—the defence bond argument—alternative financial mechanisms to support what we do are crucial.
I wish the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Southwark well for the future. In his valedictory speech, he reminded us of the importance of international humanitarian law. That is important to our country and our democracy. We understand the need to use force sometimes, but we question ourselves about whether we have the legal basis to do so, and I think we should commend ourselves for trying to act, sometimes with force, in a legal way. I wish him well for the future. We all struggle with moral dilemmas, so I look forward to him struggling with that and trying to help others with respect to that when he preaches.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Ahmad, who spoke about the importance of soft and hard power. He and I have talked long and hard about that. Soft power is crucial, but it is not, as I said before, a choice, as he agrees, between soft and hard power. I totally agree with him about the speed of procurement and trying to deliver things much more quickly. I hope the paper that I am going to ask to be put in the Library will help answer some of the points on that. He asked about the defence readiness Bill. It will be in this Parliament, and it is being worked on as we speak.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Hamilton, about complementary groups under NATO. NATO is the crucial umbrella, but underneath that you can have other organisations, such as JEF or whatever, as long as it complements NATO—I think that is particularly important. The role of the US remains crucial. That is the only point I would say. We have to retain the strategic alliance with the US.
Lord Hamilton of Epsom (Con)
The JEF point is interesting. Does the Minister agree that, if neutral countries such as Finland and Sweden can join, then so could Ukraine?
Lord Coaker (Lab)
That is a matter for discussion between all of us. The relationship with Ukraine remains crucial. How that is taken forward will have to be discussed.
I thank my noble friend Lady Antrobus. We are committed to the nuclear deterrent. I sometimes think we should talk more about it. When people ask what is the UK’s commitment to Europe, it is not a bad start to say that the UK has been committed to the nuclear deterrent for the defence of Europe for decades. It is a proud thing for us to state. I know the point she made about the ladder of escalation and the involvement of tactical nuclear weapons in future through the F35A.
I think the spending review of 2027 will answer some of the points that the noble Baroness, Lady Helic, made about spending. She will recognise the point about defence and security being the number one priority within that.
I agree with the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig, about thinking imaginatively as well as responding in a tough way to Russia and about some of the other things that he mentioned in dealing with that.
I say to the noble Lord, Lord Sherbourne, that the Prime Minister-in-waiting clearly means what he says about defending our nation. I thank the noble Lord for his kind words about me.
The noble Lord, Lord Empey, mentioned the national conversation, which is fundamental and crucial to us, and the priorities for the public. Particularly important, as he mentioned, are the grey zone, underwater cables and cyber attacks. Those sorts of things are crucial.
The noble Lord, Lord Risby, talked about space. I take the point about Skynet 5 being extended rather than a new Skynet 6, but when we look in the Defence Investment Plan, as I know he will have done, it is quite interesting. I was looking at it while he was speaking, and on pages 48 and 49 there are some quite interesting investments into space. I understand the importance of space technology and satellites if we are to fight the wars of the future, and the noble Lord is absolutely right to remind us of the importance of all that.
I thank my noble friend Lord Forbes for his points about the whole-of-society approach. By raising the age of reserves to 65, we may be able to recruit more of the engineers, doctors, cyber specialists and so on, as he was talking about.
I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Eaton, that we are accelerating our war readiness plans. The spending debate will continue, but it is going up; the debate is just about how fast it goes up and how much it should be.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Magan, for reminding us of the service of his own family, because that reminds us of the service of so many families and family members across this country. Again, we will come to a debate and discussion on the spending point, particularly around the 2027 spending review.
The noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, made a point about soft power—that is a terrible name for it in many ways, but it is crucial to delivery. I will just make this point about soft power and defence diplomacy: everywhere I go across the world, irrespective of the view of the UK, countries are queuing up for the UK to stand with them. They do not necessarily want a warship, a tank or a fighter jet. They want the status, legitimacy and confidence of what a British military uniform gives to them when they make difficult decisions to deal with the challenges they face in their countries or regions, and I am proud of that. It has been hard earned by our service men and women. I think it is something we do not appreciate enough and should speak much more of, because they make a huge difference in huge numbers of countries across the world.
I have mentioned the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Mott, about the article that I may wish to look at. I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Stuart, about the importance of the national conversation; the plan is developing. The noble Lord, Lord Altrincham, also made the point about the importance of a national conversation.
Let me say a few concluding remarks. I know that these debates are watched and read. I want to say clearly to Russia, to China or to anybody else who believes that this country is weak, and that we will not stand up for democracy, freedom and the values we cherish, that we will and we do. Do not misunderstand that in a democracy, people such as the noble Baroness, Lady Goldie, can challenge me and think I am wrong. They can think that the Government are wrong and challenge them to do more. That is not a sign of weakness; it is a sign of strength, and it is how a democracy works. That is what we have struggled and fought for through many decades and centuries. So if anybody is watching this, let them not mistake an honest, open, frank exchange of views as anything other than all of us being proud of what our country stands for, and what we will continue to stand for.
Lord Harlech (Con)
My Lords, I am truly grateful to all noble Lords, all noble and gallant Lords, and the right reverend Prelate for taking part—I wish him godspeed in his future endeavours. I am extremely grateful to the Minister for answering my questions and those of others, and for his powerful, impassioned reply at the end, which we all fully support. I add my voice to those. Whatever happens in terms of a reshuffle, we hope very much that the Minister stays in post.
This has been a fascinating strength/weakness, opportunity/threat analysis, because it has been cross-party, from all sides of the House. Again, I am truly grateful to everyone who signed up. It has also been a cross-interest debate: we have had the defence voices, but we have also heard diplomatic, economic and political voices too, which has added to its richness. I truly want the media to play its part in stimulating the national conversation; I just wish that it would give more column inches to this debate and others like it, rather than the Punch and Judy stuff that happens in the other place.
It is rare to have such unanimity of opinion but, as the Minister has said, we have heard that today. The direction of travel is right, but we must go further and faster. To govern is to choose. Yes, 3.5% or 5% is more, but it is a damn sight cheaper than the alternative of fighting a war with a peer adversary.
I will finish, as I know there is additional business to come. The campaign slogan of the right honourable Member for Makerfield, the incoming Prime Minister, was “Vote Andy, Vote Hope”. Those of us who have had a military career—and there are some here who have had much longer military careers than me—know that you learn pretty early on that hope is not a planning tool. He must understand that the defence of the realm can, and must, be a Government’s top priority.
National Security Act 2023 (Designated Bodies) Regulations 2026
(3 weeks, 6 days ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Hanson of Flint
That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 13 July be approved.
Relevant document: 9th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee (special attention drawn to the instrument)
The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Hanson of Flint) (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to the House for its consideration of this draft instrument, which will see three bodies designated: the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, the Islamic Movement of Companions of the Right, and the GRU Volunteer Corps. I know that there has been significant interest in the House in this matter from both Opposition and Liberal Democrat Benches. I hope that they will welcome these regulations today.
Threats from foreign powers and their proxies have grown in scale and complexity. Designation is a powerful tool for disrupting state bodies and those acting in concert with them, and it sends a strong message of the UK’s commitment to tackling foreign power threat activity globally. The Home Secretary has determined that these three bodies are involved in foreign power threat activity and, as such, we propose to designate them under this new power, as I suggested we may do when the Bill, now an Act, went through Parliament recently.
Before I give more detail of the bodies in question, it is worth setting out the legislative basis for this decision. For a body to be designated, the Home Secretary must reasonably believe that it is involved in foreign power threat activity, as defined in the National Security Act 2023. The definition of foreign power threat activity covers the most serious offences in the Act, including espionage, sabotage and foreign interference. It also covers broader activity that constitutes a serious threat to life or public safety when carried out for, on behalf of, or with the intention to benefit a foreign power. If that test is met, the Home Secretary must then consider whether designation is necessary to protect the safety or interests of the United Kingdom. She will take into account considerations of foreign policy and the impact on human rights as part of that decision-making process.
Once a group is designated, it will be a criminal offence within the UK’s jurisdiction to support a designated body, assist a designated body or obtain material benefits from a designated body. The penalties for these offences are imprisonment for up to 14 years and/or a fine. Where an individual commits certain espionage conduct or sabotage for a designated body, this can attract sentences of up to life imprisonment. Designation therefore enables law enforcement and intelligence agencies to disrupt designated bodies more effectively.
Given its wide-ranging impact, the Home Secretary will exercise this power only after thoroughly reviewing the available evidence, including intelligence material and cross-government advice. A decision to designate is taken only after great care and consideration, and, as noble Lords will know, it must be approved by both Houses. It was approved by the House of Commons yesterday evening.
For the benefit of noble Lords I will give some explanation of the bodies in question. First, the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps is a group that has been commented on significantly in this House over many months, before the gracious Speech and since. The long-standing threat posed by Iran and its proxies is no secret. We know that the Iranian intelligence services have established a pattern of targeting dissidents, Persian-language media organisations and journalists, as well as Jewish and Israeli communities globally.
The IRGC Quds Force and IRGC Intelligence Organisation, together with the Ministry of Intelligence and Security, form the Iranian intelligence apparatus. As a key component of the Iranian state’s security apparatus, the IRGC is answerable directly to Iran’s Supreme Leader. Its role extends beyond conventional military operations and includes intelligence activity, the use of proxy actors and influence operations designed to advance Iranian state objectives. Activity linked to the IRGC has included threats to life and intimidation on UK soil, including credible plots to target individuals in the United Kingdom. The IRGC supports militant actors overseas and has been associated with cyber and other state threats activity aligned with Iranian state objectives. I know that noble Lords across all parts of this House have great concerns about that body.
The Islamic Movement of Companions of the Right, otherwise known as Harakat Ashab al-Yamin al-Islamiyah, has publicly claimed seven attacks at UK locations linked to Jewish and Israeli communities and Persian-language media, including an antisemitic attack on four Hatzola ambulances in Golders Green on 23 March, a well-known arson attack that Members will be aware of. Sitting behind the IMCR were members of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps Quds Force, who almost certainly directed IMCR attacks across Europe. These incidents, including acts of arson and intimidation, have caused real fear and distress and have had a profound impact on those communities. It is clear that this sustained activity directly threatens the safety and interests of the United Kingdom.
The GRU Volunteer Corps is Russia’s threat to the United Kingdom in a form that extends far beyond conventional military action to include state threats. Moreover, the Kremlin increasingly relies on proxy organisations to pursue its objectives, seeking to undermine our security while maintaining a degree of plausible deniability. The so-called GRU Volunteer Corps is a clear example of that approach. It is not an independent force, nor a loose collection of volunteers; it is a proxy organisation operating under the direction and control of the GRU, Russia’s military intelligence service.
These formations are directed, supported and sustained by the GRU and are already operating across conflict zones, most notably in Ukraine in support of Russia’s illegal invasion. What we are seeing is a conscious attempt by the Russian state to blur the lines between military action, intelligence activity and criminality, using deniable forces to carry out sabotage, destabilisation and violence beyond its borders. This is not conjecture. It reflects a pattern of behaviour that underpins Russia’s aggression in Ukraine and that has been seen repeatedly across Europe, including here in the United Kingdom.
In 2024, two men organised an arson attack on a Ukrainian-owned business in east London. They acted on behalf of the Wagner Group—another proxy body that acts on behalf of the Russian state and is proscribed as a terrorist organisation. It is notable that large parts of the Wagner Group have also been absorbed into this so-called Volunteer Corps, which demonstrates the threat posed to the United Kingdom by this group.
With noble Lords’ consent, these bodies will be designated. Having carefully considered all the evidence, the Home Secretary has decided that there is sufficient evidence for her to reasonably believe that each body is involved in foreign power threat activity and that designation is necessary to protect the United Kingdom. Designation will strengthen our ability to disrupt these bodies and those who support and facilitate them. More broadly, it sends a powerful message to any foreign power or proxy that the United Kingdom will not allow harm to ourselves or our interests, and that we will do whatever it takes to prevent such activity on our soil.
In conclusion, these bodies operate in different ways but are united in their role of endangering the safety and interests of the United Kingdom through violence, intimidation and destabilisation. I know this House has called for designation. It is a proportionate and necessary response, and this Government will continue to use every available tool to confront state threats wherever they arise. I commend this instrument to the House.
Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames (LD)
My Lords, we on these Benches fully support these designations. We consistently supported the proscription of the IRGC throughout the passage of the Crime and Policing Act, to which the Minister has referred. It had been our party policy for some years, as it had been the policy of the Labour Party before the last general election. Nevertheless, the Government preferred to pursue the course, as recommended by Jonathan Hall KC, of passing the National Security (State Threats) Act. We passed fast-track legislation through this Parliament extremely quickly, not without amendment but with careful, though fast, consideration. We are now improving it in a number of ways, with an eye to promised security legislation in the future. We on these Benches regarded the Act, and the amendments negotiated to it when it was before the House, as a good example of what can be achieved by cross-party co-operation.
As the noble Lord explained, these designations respond to no fewer than seven attacks publicly claimed by the IMCR—the Islamic Movement of Companions of the Right, also known as Harakat—which is one of the bodies designated under these regulations. These were attacks within the United Kingdom that were linked to Jewish and Israeli communities. They included setting fire to the four Hatzola ambulances in Golders Green on 23 March, and attacks on some Persian language media and their journalists. The designation of the IRGC also fulfils the promise made to the Jewish community by the Prime Minister in April when he visited Kenton United Synagogue following the appalling arson attack there. That promise was that action would be taken this July to legislate for powers akin to proscription to outlaw foreign state actors and respond to threats posed by the IRGC. This designation amply responds to and fulfils that promise.
This designation of the IRGC by the United Kingdom follows the designation of the IRGC by the European Union in February this year in the aftermath of the violent repression of unarmed protesters in Iran over the turn of the year, which saw mass arrests, executions, internet shutdowns and the open use of lethal force against many thousands of demonstrators, as well as more international activity.
The designation of the Russian Federation Volunteer Corps directorate recognises the threat that the Government have concluded is posed to the United Kingdom’s national security by the Russian state and security apparatus, of which this body is part, as the Minister has explained.
We are entirely clear that the Government are rightly satisfied that these three bodies have met the requirements set out in the Act for designation and, for that reason, we fully support these designations.
Baroness Williams of Trafford (Con)
My Lords, I am very happy to thank the Minister for bringing forward these regulations today, after ongoing calls to do so, as he mentioned. We welcome that the Government are taking action to designate the three bodies after Parliament recently passed the National Security (State Threats) Act. We all know the risks that groups such as the IRGC pose towards the United Kingdom, and it is right that the new powers have been brought forward and used to prevent support for and assistance to state-linked bodies that pose such threats.
The Minister will know that my noble friends Lord Davies of Gower and Lord Cameron of Lochiel welcomed the state threats Bill when it was before your Lordships’ House. However, they raised a number of concerns as to what we considered to be gaps in the Bill and what we think remain gaps in the Act now. It was disappointing to see the Liberal Democrats side with the Government in opposing our amendment to that Bill to criminalise the display of insignia and the wearing of uniforms associated with a designated body, as recommended by Jonathan Hall. It is unfortunate that, despite these regulations designating the IRGC, the flag of the IRGC—with its menacing fist holding aloft an assault rifle—will still be able to be prominently displayed on our streets. The Government have said that this is about diplomatic relations, but there are no diplomatic relationships with Russia or Iran, which are of course the mother countries of these organised associations designated in the regulations.
It is also concerning that the Government appear not to have tackled the true nature of the threat presented by the IRGC. It is not just a conventional state actor—the Minister has outlined that. It constitutes a unique hybrid terror threat. Although it is a state actor, it is also an ideological group that adheres to a specific form of extreme Islamism. It combines both conventional hostile state activity with a sort of asymmetric warfare and the dissemination of terrorist material. It incites, promotes, instigates, inspires and carries out threats of ideologically motivated violence and terrorism, including, as the Minister said, on British soil.
These are the threats that we were trying to tackle in our amendments to the state threats Bill. Although it is welcome that the Government have at least tried to tackle the threat from the IRGC, the GRU Volunteer Corps and the Islamic Movement of Companions of the Right, I still worry that they have not created legislation with the teeth to tackle these threats. I would be grateful, in conclusion, if the Minister can reconfirm, as he said during the passage of the Bill, that the issues that I have outlined today will be addressed in a future national security Bill.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
Let me first welcome the noble Baroness back to the Home Office, even if it is only a temporary glitch. Let me also, through her, pass on my thanks to the noble Lords, Lord Davies of Gower and Lord Cameron of Lochiel, for their broad support for the Bill, which has allowed us, now that it is an Act, to effect these designations. I also thank the noble Lord, Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames, for his broad support for the proposals before the House today.
As the noble Lord, Lord Marks of Henley-on-Thames, mentioned, this proposal came out of, first, a manifesto commitment to have a review, and secondly, Jonathan Hall KC bringing forward proposals on how we deal with state threats. I am grateful to His Majesty’s Official Opposition and to the Liberal Democrats for their support in helping get the state threats Act, as it now is, through Parliament. There were some challenges, there were some amendments which we accepted from the Liberal Democrats, and there were some amendments that I tried to explain from His Majesty’s loyal Opposition, but with that Act passed only a couple of weeks ago and Royal Assent granted only in the last 10 days or so, we have got to a position which has allowed us to bring forward these regulations for the reasons that I outlined.
I think there was general consensus from the noble Lord, Lord Marks, and the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Trafford, that this measure is required for these groups, for the reasons I outlined in my opening speech. I do not intend to delay the House too long on those matters, because I think there is general consensus that we need to do this.
In discussions that we had with both Opposition Front Benches in the run-up to the state threats Bill before it became an Act, I tried to indicate that the Act was being proposed for a purpose, and today is the first use of that power for a definitive purpose. We wanted to have that Act at speed, and I pressed both Front Benches very hard to get it through speedily, because we needed, in my view and in the view of the Home Secretary, to get this legislation passed, both in the House of Commons, which rises today, and in the House of Lords, where we face another week in Parliament, as quickly as possible. That means that this designation, once I sign the order, if it is agreed by this House, can be put into effect fairly soon. For all those reasons, I welcome the support of both Front Benches, including their support for further action, as the noble Baroness asked for.
In the gracious Speech, we promised a state security Bill later in the parliamentary Session. It will cover a number of issues, which the House will not expect me to go into because the Bill has not yet been published, but we discussed issues such as passports in Committee on the state threats Bill, and I gave indications that we wanted to take action on that. On the display of a Palestinian flag but not an IRGC flag, and the illegality of that, if a person expresses support in any way, and if their reasons for doing so are prejudicial to the safety of the United Kingdom, they will commit an offence. I hope that gives the noble Baroness some reassurance. That is different from the provisions in the Terrorism Act and reflects the reality of dealing with bodies that benefit from protection under international law. Individual decisions to arrest or charge will be for the police and prosecutors, but people who glorify terrorism will potentially face action in future.
The noble Baroness asked me about not criminalising the specific offence of the display or wearing of certain articles of clothing. I said during debates on amendments to the state threats Bill that we consider that the supporting of a designated body offence is wide enough to capture the display or wearing of articles when this is done for a prohibited purpose. It was therefore, in our view, unnecessary to create a specific offence, while also avoiding potential enforceability challenges by foreign state officials who are protected by international law. Whether we like that or not, that is the situation. I gave that explanation to the noble Lords, Lord Davies and Lord Cameron, and I give it now to the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Trafford. I hope that she will recognise that there will be further action downstream. As a former Minister in the Home Office, she will know that I cannot say what, I cannot say when, and I cannot give detail, but, if she remembers, and the noble Lord, Lord Marks, will concur with this, I could not say when or what or give detail about the regulations that I have brought forward today, but those regulations are here.
For the reasons I have mentioned and with gratitude for the support of both Opposition Front Benches, I condemn—no, not condemn; it has been a long day waiting for the debate—I commend these regulations to the House and hope Hansard will treat me kindly.