House of Commons
Speaker’s Statement
Mr Speaker
Before we start questions, I would like to take this opportunity to pay tribute to the legendary Sir Billy Boston. He was a pioneer in the rugby world, switching codes from union to league, a record try scorer for Wigan, and the second highest all-time scorer of tries. He was a world cup winner for his country and the first ever rugby league player to receive a knighthood. He was known for the BBC documentary “The Rugby Codebreakers”. Because he was black he could not play for Wales or for Cardiff. He was an exile who had to come north. May that never happen again. I wish Billy peace in death.
Oral Answers to Questions
(1 day, 7 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Joe Powell (Kensington and Bayswater) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (Lisa Nandy)
Can I associate myself with your kind words, Mr Speaker, about the legend that is Sir Billy Boston? It was also a real pleasure to hear you say the word “Wigan” in the context of rugby league without choking.
This Government are committed to implementing the regulation of short-term lets. We believe in our communities and in their right to shape their own areas. This regulation is about putting power back into people’s hands so that they can shape the right balance between the benefits that tourism brings and the needs of people locally for decent housing.
Joe Powell
Over the summer, the abuse of short-term lets in my community has continued with breaches of lease, antisocial behaviour, subletting of private rented properties and social housing, and even short-term lets hosting brothels. We still do not have a way of identifying where these lets are so that enforcement action can be taken, nor do we have a way of implementing London’s 90-day cap on lets, so will the Secretary of State please do all she can to make it a priority to tackle these serious harms? Can she tell us when the register will go live, and will she work with those of us affected and local councils so that we can find solutions for our communities?
Lisa Nandy
I assure my hon. Friend that we certainly will. The problem that he points to is a problem across the country. I recognise it in my own constituency of Wigan, where the council has taken decisive action to clamp down on houses in multiple occupation. What we have seen instead is short-term lets springing up to get around the ban, which is causing havoc in local communities. I can reassure my hon. Friend that in his first week in the job the Prime Minister asked me to accelerate this work, and that work is now continuing apace. In any case, the register will be up and running in full by March.
Sarah Dyke (Glastonbury and Somerton) (LD)
In rural areas such as Glastonbury and Somerton, the growing number of short-term lets is displacing local families and workers from the rented sector, hollowing out our rural communities. What steps is the Secretary of State taking to make sure that any new regulation protects rural rented stock from being removed from the market?
Lisa Nandy
That is precisely why we are bringing forward the measure to introduce a register of short-term lets. We believe that local leaders need to be able to understand what is happening in their local areas and to shape that in order to have the benefits of tourism. Some areas may want to have more short-term lets available to support the tourism industry, but there are other areas, including in the hon. Lady’s constituency, where there is a real need for local housing for local people, and local leaders should have the power to provide that.
Mr Will Forster (Woking) (LD)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (Stephanie Peacock)
Everyone, regardless of background, should have access to quality sporting opportunities. Sport England targets investment towards deprived communities and places with the greatest need. For example, 50% of the awards from its £160 million movement fund have gone to areas ranked in the top 25% for greatest need.
Mr Forster
Four of my constituents—Ethan, Harrison, Jude and Lukas—who train at the Martial X Academy in Woking have been selected to represent their country in next month’s martial arts world championships. As well as wishing them well, I hope that the Minister will take steps to ensure that the costs that they are having to pay to compete—over £1,000 each—is reduced in future to enable young athletes to represent their country.
Stephanie Peacock
I congratulate Ethan, Harrison, Jude and Lukas on their selection to represent England at the martial arts world championships. I am sure that the whole House will want to wish them good luck next month. The Government are committed to ensuring that people, whatever their postcode, can access quality facilities and enjoy the sports that they love. On international representation specifically, the Government directly support Olympic and Paralympic pathways. For other international opportunities, parents should contact the relevant governing bodies or SportsAid for support and advice. Via Sport England, we provide over £60 million of funding to SportsAid, whose backing the best programme helps talented young athletes overcome financial barriers.
Gill German (Clwyd North) (Lab)
This summer, Denbigh Town football club did itself proud as the host of four UEFA under-19 championship games, including a Spain versus Germany match that saw record attendance of almost 2,000 spectators. Thanks to significant investment in Central Park, including a £300,000 Cymru Football Foundation grant funded by this Government, not only is the club now match fit to host international games, but it has top-class facilities all year round for the whole community. Does the Minister agree that the inspiration and opportunities that that brings to children from all walks of life are immeasurable? How are the Government ensuring that facilities like those are available across the country?
Stephanie Peacock
My hon. Friend talks about the investment from the Government and the football foundation into Central Park. She is right; we know that the thing that is most likely to get young people active in sport is watching live sport. That is why we are so committed to investing in our community facilities.
Dame Caroline Dinenage (Gosport) (Con)
I know that the Minister cares deeply about increasing sporting participation, so she must be as disappointed as I am that the Government’s rhetoric just does not match the facts. School sport funding has been cut; business rates rises mean that clubs and facilities are raising their participation fees, some by as much as 85%, making them less accessible for the poorest; local authorities are shutting their facilities; and the UK ranks near the bottom of EU expenditure on sport and physical activity. The Government say that this is important, but how can we believe them when existing facilities are shutting faster than they can invest in new ones?
Stephanie Peacock
I am grateful to the Chair of the Select Committee for all the work that her Committee does and for its report in the last year on this very issue. On school sport, £1 billion will go in over the next few years. There has been a change: it is revenue, it is capital and it is primary and secondary. However, we have to acknowledge that under the current system, not enough young people are getting active. We are investing £400 million into community facilities, but as our new Prime Minister has said, we absolutely want to go further and do more on sport.
John Whitby (Derbyshire Dales) (Lab)
Does the Minister recognise the disproportionate impact that the removal of the school sport premium will have on children in small rural schools? Is that a conversation that she is having with the Department for Education?
Stephanie Peacock
As my hon. Friend will have heard in my answer to the Chair of the Select Committee, we make no apologies for changing the system. Not enough young people are getting active. As a former secondary school teacher, I know how important that is. I am happy to speak to my hon. Friend and, of course, I speak regularly to the Schools Minister about this issue.
Mr Louie French (Old Bexley and Sidcup) (Con)
I refer Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.
Making sport more accessible should be the ultimate goal of the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport, and that is why we continue to urge the Government to stop raising taxes on sports clubs and to ensure that all sports, and especially female sports, champion fairness and safety. The Conservative party is clear: all UK sports and their governing bodies must follow the law when it comes to biological sex and ensure that there is a level playing field for female athletes to compete. Will the Government match the Conservative party’s commitment to women’s sport and remove public funding from sports bodies that refuse to follow the law?
Stephanie Peacock
We have always been clear that national sporting governing bodies will set their own policies for who can participate. It is incredibly important that we prioritise fairness, safety and competition, while balancing the need for inclusion and ensuring that everyone can participate.
Amanda Martin (Portsmouth North) (Lab)
Leigh Ingham (Stafford) (Lab)
The Minister of State, Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (Ian Murray)
Everyone should be able to participate in and enjoy culture wherever they live in the country. Through our arts everywhere programme, we are investing £1.5 billion into arts, culture and heritage across England. In addition, our UK city and town of culture competitions are empowering cities and towns to celebrate their local culture, and we are focusing investment and engagement in our culture priority places to ensure that the benefits of culture can be felt everywhere.
Amanda Martin
Statistically, Portsmouth more closely resembles places such as Hull, Gateshead and the Wirral than its neighbours on the south coast. Our region is often overlooked as affluent, but my city has suffered loss of industry and faces serious deprivation and child poverty. Bringing in the good vibes, however, Portsmouth has so much to offer, from our historic dockyard to seafront creative activities and festivals, and Portsmouth is bursting with talent. This August we officially submitted our bid to become UK city of culture. Does the Minister agree that it is time for the first city of culture in the south of England and that Portsmouth deserves that investment?
Ian Murray
Nobody brings good vibes to the Chamber more than my hon. Friend. Portsmouth holds an important place in our national story, with its strong maritime history, thriving cultural sector and iconic sites such as the historic dockyard. The UK city of culture competition gives all bidders, win or lose, opportunities to deliver on their ambitions to use culture as a catalyst to make transformative change for their people and place. The competition has an independent panel of judges, chaired by the wonderful Sir Phil Redmond. I wish Portsmouth and all bidding places the very best of luck, and I thank my hon. Friend, who does so much for her constituents, for her lobbying.
Leigh Ingham
Mr Speaker, you know as well as I do that Stafford has brilliant cultural amenities, such as the Gatehouse theatre, which recently hosted a first-of-its-kind technical summer school, providing a unique opportunity for young people to experience technical theatre skills. However, it can be much more challenging for those who live in more rural areas, such as in those in my constituency, who do not necessarily get the same opportunities due to rural transport issues and a lack of cultural amenities. Will the Minister please tell me what the Government are doing to support cultural activities, particularly for young people in our rural areas?
Ian Murray
I commend the Gatehouse theatre in Stafford for all that it does for young people; it is a fantastic initiative. The DCMS understands that people in rural areas face additional challenges in accessing culture. We know that transport challenges make accessing touring productions and after-school activities more difficult. Indeed, that was something we discussed on Staffordshire Day in this place. Arts Council England is committed to responding to the specific needs of rural areas, such as working with artists, improving access for rural audiences and building partnerships for growth. Access to culture should not be a postcode lottery, either due to transport restrictions or availability, and that is what our arts everywhere programme is all about.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Minister for that answer. Castle Ward, a local National Trust site in my constituency, puts on a host of cultural and creative activities throughout the year to allow locals to engage with the arts. Bus services are needed so that people in urban and rural areas can access those activities. Will the Minister work in partnership with the National Trust on this issue right across this great United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland?
Ian Murray
Absolutely, and I commend the hon. Gentleman for the work done in his constituency, including at Castle Ward. Encouraging everyone to go and visit would be the best thing for me to do as the Minister. Transport connectivity for those attending cultural and music events and historic and heritage places came up at the Select Committee sitting I attended this week, so we are working hard to resolve these issues.
Vikki Slade (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (LD)
Wareham is fortunate to be served by the fantastic Rex cinema, which is Dorset’s oldest cinema and one of the oldest in the country, and it is volunteer led. It shows two films every day and has been refurbished to maintain its art deco interior. However, its roof is now over 135 years old and will cost £400,000 to repair. The volunteers have funded a new projector, but they just cannot raise that sort of money. Will the Minister consider extending cultural capital grants to community cinemas?
Mr Speaker
Order. I am struggling because we only get a short time for these questions. I think we should have an hour, and I hope somebody will reflect on that.
Ian Murray
In the interests of time, I will just say that I am happy to meet the hon. Lady to discuss that issue in more detail.
Rebecca Paul (Reigate) (Con)
Celebrating culture as a community can be an incredibly unifying experience, and many people will have enjoyed Notting Hill carnival this weekend, but 636 people were arrested for crimes including sexual offences and possession of weapons. Last year, it cost about £16 million just to police the carnival, and this year a further £4.6 million of taxpayers’ money was provided for additional safety measures. Given those figures, are the Minister and the Secretary of State satisfied that this particular cultural event represents good value for taxpayers? What discussions is the Secretary of State having with colleagues about whether the present approach is sustainable?
Ian Murray
I congratulate the hon. Lady on her position and welcome her to her place. I look forward to the many discussions the ministerial team will have with her shadow ministerial team. I am sure that she will do a marvellous job.
It was the 60th anniversary of Notting Hill carnival. Everyone is concerned about the 636 arrests. It is a carnival that has been enjoyed by tens of millions of people over the past 60 years. Its policing is the responsibility of the Mayor of London, and we will work closely with the Mayor of London on what will happen over the next 60 years of the Notting Hill carnival. It is something that we should celebrate and enjoy, but that has to be done safely, without discrimination for anyone and without fear or favour for anyone.
Shockat Adam (Leicester South) (Ind)
The Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (Lisa Nandy)
I point the hon. Gentleman to the recent report from the AI Safety Institute in December, which showed that AI’s role in social interaction, online harms, cyber-security and the workplace is increasing. We are taking the risks of AI as seriously as we take the opportunities, working closely with colleagues in the Department for Business, Innovation, Science and Trade and the Cabinet Office. We are clear as a Government that companies cannot be allowed to mark their own homework.
Shockat Adam
I welcome the response from the Secretary of State. The company OpenAI has just created a program called Astra, which, in its own words, is the most dangerous program it has ever created because it can hack other programs autonomously. That follows other AI programs unleashing themselves from their own security system and hacking other programs simply because they can—because they speak a language that only they seem to understand. AI is inevitably our future, but with the Government handing over NHS contracts and our public service records to big American AI companies, what is the Secretary of State doing to ensure that we are kept safe in this dangerous world?
Lisa Nandy
The hon. Gentleman is right to point to the fact that as frontier AI develops, it poses new challenges and new risks, not just in the area of hacking but by creating confusion about legal liability, safeguards and who is responsible. There is a clear role for Government, and we are working hard to make sure that we meet those expectations.
Dame Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central and West) (Lab)
My Select Committee’s report “Science diplomacy: Sovereignty, strategy and the global race” highlighted the risk of the UK being cut off from frontier AI models at the whim of other countries—one country in particular comes to mind. What assessment has the Secretary of State made of the impact on the UK’s society and economy if we were unable to access those models?
Lisa Nandy
My hon. Friend is right to point to the UK’s need for sovereign capability in AI. I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Leicester West (Liz Kendall), whose work I have inherited in this area. I also thank my hon. Friend for the contribution of the Science, Innovation and Technology Committee over a long period of time. We are taking the need to deal with the exposure of the UK very seriously, and I would be happy to meet her to discuss that further.
Anna Sabine (Frome and East Somerset) (LD)
Frontier AI is supercharging misinformation online, but we still cannot get to grips with harms much closer to home. There are campaigners in the Public Gallery today, including Tulisa Contostavlos, who was the target of a fabricated story following an undercover tabloid sting, and is proof of the damage that an unregulated press can do. Such examples are why the Lib Dems want the full implementation of Leveson 1 and the commissioning of Leveson 2. Will the Secretary of State meet me and Tulisa to discuss finally getting proper regulation of the press?
Lisa Nandy
I would be delighted to offer the hon. Lady that meeting. I take this opportunity to pay tribute to Tulisa, whom I have admired for many years for the way in which she has taken such a dreadful experience and used it to help others. Mr Speaker, can I also take this moment to acknowledge the absolutely tragic death of Professor Jason Arday, which happened since the House last met? There is an ongoing inquest and an ongoing investigation by the University of Cambridge. While the Government would not wish to undermine in any sense those ongoing inquiries, I want to reassure the House, and the many families who have been affected by the sort of practices that the hon. Lady references over many years, that we are not neutral when it comes to protecting our citizens.
Jerome Mayhew (Broadland and Fakenham) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (Stephanie Peacock)
I have had discussions with ministerial colleagues across Government and spoken to mayors and a range of tourism representatives. The Government are committed to giving powers to local areas to enact an overnight levy, and we will work closely with the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government and HM Treasury on developing the policy.
Jerome Mayhew
Rural and coastal communities are particularly reliant on seasonal tourism. If Members look at my registered interests, they will see that I used to run one of those businesses. Do the Government not understand that it is already tough enough out there, without them thinking up a new tax on holidays? Instead of ploughing on regardless, will the Government commit to publishing an independent assessment on the impact on businesses before any new tax is introduced?
Stephanie Peacock
I was in Blackpool last week discussing the issue with representatives of the sector and I visited the hon. Gentleman’s constituency a few years ago, so I know how important tourism is to coastal communities up and down the country. Introducing a levy will be up to local areas, and it will make sense for those areas to invest the funds generated in improving the local tourism offer, as many have already committed to doing.
Jessica Toale (Bournemouth West) (Lab)
Hotels in my constituency are largely in favour of an overnight visitor levy, on the proviso that the money is ringfenced for tourism purposes, not lost to the black hole of local authority or strategic authority finances. What reassurances can the Minister give hotels in my constituency?
Stephanie Peacock
As I just outlined, it will of course make sense for those funds to be reinvested in local tourism, but that will be a decision for local areas. That is why we are working closely with the Treasury and MHCLG, so that local areas can be empowered to make the decisions that are right for their areas.
Nigel Huddleston (Droitwich and Evesham) (Con)
I welcome the new shadow Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Reigate (Rebecca Paul), and the new shadow Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for North West Norfolk (James Wild), to their places. May I take this opportunity to thank the Secretary of State and her team for their constructive engagement with me over the last year?
However—there is always a “however” with me —on Tuesday the new Prime Minister committed the Government to bringing in a new holiday tax. On Wednesday, he told the House that he was helping businesses by cutting taxes, yet we all know that business rates and national insurance are increasing, which is destroying over 100,000 jobs in tourism and hospitality alone. In what crazy Labour universe is it possible for the Prime Minister to claim that he is cutting taxes when the Government are actually increasing them and bringing in entirely new taxes?
Stephanie Peacock
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, and I pay tribute to him for all his work as the shadow Secretary of State and as a Minister before that. It has been a pleasure to work with him, and I look forward to continuing to do so.
Of course, there is more than one tax; we are cutting taxes, but we are also introducing an overnight levy. As I have outlined, we are working across Government, with the tourist sector and with mayors to make sure we get that right for local areas. It of course makes sense for that money to be reinvested in the tourism sector, but that will be up to local areas to decide.
Jeff Smith (Manchester Withington) (Lab)
I think rural and coastal communities can be encouraged by the success of the city visitor charge in Manchester, where we have raised £10 million for investment in advertising, tourism and cleaning the city. Will the Minister join me in rejecting the scaremongering and reminding people that this is a purely permissive measure? It is up to local areas to do it if they want.
Stephanie Peacock
I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who is an excellent champion for his city of Manchester. He shares a really important example. It is right to caution against scaremongering. It is absolutely right that local areas have the powers to make the decisions themselves.
Dr Simon Opher (Stroud) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (Lisa Nandy)
I will get up, Mr Speaker. I thank my hon. Friend for his long-standing work on this—[Laughter.] Let me start again!
I thank my hon. Friend for his intense work on this issue. The Minister for sport will be delighted to meet him. However, my hon. Friend will know that lidos are a personal passion for me, and reversing the neglect of these much-loved community assets is something that this Government intend to make a priority. We will be in a position to say more about that shortly, but in the meantime I pay tribute to him and to my hon. Friends the Members for Peterborough (Andrew Pakes) and for Bournemouth West (Jessica Toale) for their campaign to ensure that lidos have their proper place in British public life.
Dr Opher
In Stroud I celebrated the reopening of our lido by making a splash, jumping in fully clothed next to a woman dressed as a lobster. I want to thank Save Stroud Lido, the Friends of Stratford Park Lido and the whole community for working to reopen the lido. As the Secretary of State knows, most of our lidos were built in the 1930s and are in financial difficulty, so I really look forward to meeting the Minister and maybe establishing a lido fund to support our lidos nationally.
Lisa Nandy
My hon. Friend makes a very compelling case. While I do not wish to pre-empt any imminent announcement, I will just say that the Government really recognise the need to support communities with the funding pressures that lidos face, including energy costs, and we will have more to say about that shortly.
Dr Danny Chambers (Winchester) (LD)
There is a very passionate group of people in Winchester who have long campaigned for a lido to be built in the old leisure centre, and they are very excited that one of the proposals for the old leisure centre is a lido. Could the Minister explain what support is available for such facilities, which get people outside, exercising and being part of the community, which is good for physical and mental health?
Lisa Nandy
The hon. Gentleman will have heard the Minister for sport talk about the £400 million that we are putting into grassroots sports facilities, and he will also have heard my answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Dr Opher) about a forthcoming announcement that we are planning to make specifically around lidos. I congratulate the hon. Gentleman’s community on defending, supporting and championing not just leisure facilities but lidos in particular. Most of the lidos in this country exist because of people like his constituents, who care for them and have supported them to stay open for many years. I would be very happy to visit and meet them at some point—but only on the condition that there is a woman dressed as a lobster as part of the event.
Joe Robertson (Isle of Wight East) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (Stephanie Peacock)
Tourism drives economic growth and jobs across the country, including the Isle of Wight, and over the summer months the Great British summer savings scheme provided a temporary VAT cut for eligible businesses, to encourage visits to tourist attractions during the school holidays. At the same time, Visit Britain’s “Starring GREAT Britain” campaign is promoting film and TV locations, to inspire global audiences to explore a wide range of regions across Great Britain.
Joe Robertson
Growth in tourism requires an increase in visitor numbers so that more money is spent on the high street, not a new tax. Oxford Economics says that the cost of the overnight visitor levy will be around £1.8 billion in reduced spending, and a decrease in tax receipts, not an increase. Will the Minister confirm that the visitor economy growth strategy will consider the harm caused by the new tourism tax, and say when it will be published?
Stephanie Peacock
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, who I know is a huge champion for his constituency, and indeed on this subject. We are committed to increasing visitor numbers—he will have heard my answer to the previous question on the overnight levy, and there is a strong case for any money raised to be reinvested in tourism. As I said, I was in Blackpool last week speaking to tourism industry leaders and businesses, and far from the doom and gloom that the hon. Member alludes to, I witnessed a great deal of hope, hard work and dynamism.
Rachel Blake (Cities of London and Westminster) (Lab/Co-op)
We have had a good debate about the overnight stay levy and short lets, but on Warwick Way in my constituency I have seen real harm to communities because of unregulated short lets. Does the Minister agree that for the tourism industry to be a real success, hotels cannot be undermined by short lets, and that getting the registration scheme in place and the Treasury to investigate where there might be breaches of HMRC rules are important steps forward in ensuring that?
Stephanie Peacock
I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who has been a strong champion on this issue. It was a delight to visit her constituency earlier this year to talk and to see at first hand the problem that it creates. As the Secretary of State has outlined, this Government are committed to that register, and we know the difference it will make to communities such as my hon. Friend’s and those up and down the country.
James Wild (North West Norfolk) (Con)
The visitor economy is worth £147 billion, supporting millions of jobs, but this Government have hammered the sector with higher taxes and they now plan a holiday tax. Perhaps there is some hope, however, as on Monday the Prime Minister told the House that he wants to go further than business rate relief for pubs and music venues. Will the Minister urge him to take up Conservative policy and scrap business rates for those venues as well as for restaurants, cafes, hotels and leisure attractions, and support that vital sector?
Stephanie Peacock
I welcome the hon. Gentleman to his place and look forward to working with him in the coming months. He will have heard that the review of business rates for pubs and hotels announced just a few weeks ago by the Chancellor has been welcomed by a number of people, including the CEO of UKHospitality, who said it was a “positive move”. Under this Government we have seen the biggest investment in the tourism sector: the £6.3 billion Universal Studios investment at Bedford. It was a pleasure to be there a few weeks ago.
Adam Jogee (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (Vicky Foxcroft)
As set out in the Government’s digital inclusion plan, everyone in every community should be able to benefit from technology. That is why we launched the £11.9 million digital inclusion innovation fund, backing local projects across the country to help people get online. I am glad that Citizens Advice in Staffordshire was one of the funded projects, supporting people with digital skills and resilience, including online banking and job searching.
Adam Jogee
I welcome the Minister to her new position. Residents across Newcastle-under-Lyme, particularly in Betley, Wolseley and Wrinehill, have been digitally left behind by poor broadband connectivity for far too long. I have raised this issue before, but will the new Minister do what she can to ensure that my constituents who work and live in rural communities can get online? Will she come along to hear their experiences?
Adam Thompson (Erewash) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (Lisa Nandy)
Let me start by recognising the extraordinary British sportsmen and women who lit up the world this summer. I also put on record what an honour it is to return to this place with a newly created Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport. I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Leicester West (Liz Kendall) for the extraordinary work she did in a very short period, opening up opportunities for young people to benefit from the technological developments of the future, and taking decisive action on social media. I also thank the hon. Member for Droitwich and Evesham (Nigel Huddleston) for the constructive way he has both challenged and supported us as a Front-Bench team since the general election, always acting in the interests of the sectors that we both care passionately about. I welcome the hon. Member for Reigate (Rebecca Paul) to her place, and I am very much looking forward to working with her.
Finally, I wish to pay tribute to the rugby league legend Sir Billy Boston, and to his incredible wife, Lady Joan, who sadly passed away a few weeks before Sir Billy. Billy was a sporting giant. His talent, determination and legacy will inspire generations for years to come. It was a privilege to work with you, Mr Speaker, following your campaign over many years to right a historic wrong and to ensure that he became the first ever knight of rugby league. Rest in peace, Sir Billy Boston.
Adam Thompson
Take-Two Interactive CEO Strauss Zelnick recently said that its business is now well over 90% digitally distributed. Take-Two has confirmed that the physical box of “Grand Theft Auto VI” will not contain a physical disc, but will instead contain a download code. Killing physical media prevents consumers trading in or sharing their games, and it erodes the concept of true ownership of a product. What is the Secretary of State doing to support the physical ownership of video games, as well as music and film?
Lisa Nandy
The Minister of State, Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport, my right hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh South (Ian Murray) has just reminded me that he and I are so old that we started out loading cassette tapes when we played video games as kids. I am aware that people feel very strongly about this issue. My hon. Friend will know that decisions around media formats are ultimately for companies, but we as a Government believe that companies should always be clear with customers about what they are paying for. That is why we have commissioned the Chartered Trading Standards Institute to develop guidance that will clarify people’s ownership rights when they purchase digital games, music and films.
Rebecca Paul (Reigate) (Con)
I thank the Secretary of State for her warm words. I am looking forward to working constructively with her and her team.
May I begin by paying tribute to PC Matthew Blades and PC Tom Clough, who were killed in a horrific head-on collision on the A66 last month? The car that collided with them was travelling in the wrong direction. My thoughts are with their families and friends at this terrible, terrible time. Their deaths have renewed concern about videos on TikTok and other platforms that glorify dangerous driving and police chases. The behaviour these videos encourage can have fatal consequences. We know the Government recently raised this issue with social media companies, yet the content remains up. What more will the Minister and the Secretary of State do to ensure that TikTok and other platforms crack down on that before more lives are lost?
Lisa Nandy
The hon. Lady is absolutely right, first of all, to pay tribute to those incredible police officers who lost their lives. May I associate myself with her remarks and put on record my sadness, love and sympathy to their families and loved ones? I agree with her that there is more that must be done to tackle what is becoming an epidemic in young people in particular using social media to encourage dangerous behaviour. I have a meeting set up with TikTok in the coming days. We have obviously been in close discussion with it and other social media companies since that tragic, appalling incident, but there is more that we as a Government intend to do and I would be very happy to meet her to discuss that further.
Callum Anderson (Buckingham and Bletchley) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (Stephanie Peacock)
My hon. Friend is a great champion for his city. It was a pleasure to do a sporting visit to his constituency earlier this year. We have a really strong shortlist for the city of culture—and indeed for the town of culture. I look forward to visiting those on the final shortlist in the near future.
Olly Glover (Didcot and Wantage) (LD)
Stephanie Peacock
Cricket is incredibly popular, and I know how important it is in my own constituency—I visited Worsbrough to see the England and Wales Cricket Board’s schools programme in action. Programmes like that are incredibly important for getting people, and in particular young people, involved and active in sport.
Danny Beales (Uxbridge and South Ruislip) (Lab)
The Minister of State, Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (Ian Murray)
I thank my hon. Friend for bringing this incredibly serious question to DCMS questions this morning. There is no place for homophobia or prejudice in our society, and the media has a duty to uphold the highest standards, not polarise or divide. I understand that Ofcom is investigating whether the programme has breached broadcasting code standards, and I expect it to do so without fear or favour. Through our media Green Paper, we are considering how to ensure Ofcom has the right powers to protect audiences and regulate TV services in the future. We have a proud free media and free press in this country, but that does not come without responsibilities, and GB News should be thoroughly ashamed of itself.
Mr Will Forster (Woking) (LD)
Lisa Nandy
The hon. Member will know from previous discussions we have had in this place that there is a balance to be struck between making sure we get the right level of investment in sport and making sure those sports are opened up to the widest possible audience. That is a conversation that we continue to have. There is another element to this, which is the cost of tickets, and this Government are taking action on secondary ticket touts, which I know the hon. Member’s party strongly supports. Later today, we will have the pleasure of introducing the Sporting Events Bill to this place. Through that Bill, we are taking action to make sure ticket prices remain affordable and that those practices are stamped out when it comes to sporting events.
Gordon McKee (Glasgow South) (Lab)
Lisa Nandy
I absolutely, 100% agree with my hon. Friend that football belongs to its fans. For far too long, fans have been treated as at best an afterthought and at worst a nuisance when it comes to the future of their own clubs, their own tournaments and their own game. As a Government, we are appalled by what happened recently regarding the world cup, and the Prime Minister has been crystal clear that it is time for a change of leadership at FIFA.
Rebecca Smith (South West Devon) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (Vicky Foxcroft)
The Charity Commission takes very seriously concerns about the alleged misuse of charities in the UK to promote the interests of foreign states. The Government’s social cohesion action plan, published in March, set out our plans to strengthen the Charity Commission’s powers to tackle extremists’ abuse of charities. We are working with the Charity Commission to develop the necessary legislation, and we take this issue very, very seriously.
Mr Speaker
That completes DCMS questions. Some news for the House: when we return after the conference recess, the session will be for an hour.
Kate Osamor (Edmonton and Winchmore Hill) (Lab/Co-op)
The Second Church Estates Commissioner (Marsha De Cordova)
The Church condemns the persecution that we have seen and stands in solidarity with Palestinian Christian communities across the Holy Land as they continue to face profound hardship. The Church of England remains committed to supporting our Anglican partners, advocating for human rights and calling for the upholding of international humanitarian law and a just and lasting peace for the Palestinians.
Kate Osamor
Taybeh, an ancient Palestinian Christian village in the west bank, is facing record levels of escalating Israeli settler attacks. Father Bashar Fawadleh has warned that residents feel vulnerable and insufficiently protected. What engagement has the Church had with church leaders in Taybeh, and what further steps can the Church take to support this community and help ensure its continued presence and security in the Holy Land?
Marsha De Cordova
May I first thank my hon. Friend for her continued and steadfast support for the Palestinians? Since the start of this year, the UN has reported that 76 Palestinians have been killed by settler violence, and that number includes 18 children. As she has rightly mentioned, the village of Taybeh continues to experience near-daily raids on homes by settlers, and the village has been almost entirely encircled by roadblocks and fences. During her recent visit to the diocese of Jerusalem, the Archbishop of Canterbury met with Christian leaders, where she heard at first hand of the suffering being experienced by Palestinian Christians, including persistent violence, destruction of property, seizure of land and restrictions on movement. The settler terrorism that we are witnessing must come to an end.
Tessa Munt (Wells and Mendip Hills) (LD)
May I encourage the Church Commissioners to support the Church in facilitating community events? Wells cathedral and Wells bishop’s palace are at the centre of an amazing programme of year-round festivals, fairs and markets, but the Church Commissioners have suddenly served a stop notice on the Phelps’ family at Palace farm in Wells, which for decades has offered—
Mr Speaker
Order. I am sorry, but the original question was about Palestine. What the hon. Member is saying is not relevant to that question. Let us move on.
Jen Craft (Thurrock) (Lab)
Nick Smith (Blaenau Gwent and Rhymney)
The House of Commons Administration provides a variety of training for Members and their staff to help them respond to domestic and sexual abuse casework, which includes a day-long training course on dealing with cases of domestic abuse, human resources sessions on domestic abuse awareness and an e-learning module on safeguarding. The training courses equip participants with the knowledge and confidence to recognise signs, respond accordingly and provide access to support and resources.
Jen Craft
As Members of Parliament, we regularly support vulnerable women and girls who have experienced sexual abuse, sexual violence, rape, stalking, coercive behaviour and other forms of violence. These can be some of the most complex and sensitive cases, requiring knowledge of legal frameworks, safeguarding and trauma to safely support individuals in traumatising circumstances. I am extremely grateful to be able to lean on the expert guidance of SERICC, our fantastic local rape and sexual abuse service in Essex, but not all Members’ offices are as fortunate. What guidance does the House of Commons provide to Members specifically on responding to rape and sexual abuse casework, and is there scope to provide more specialist and trauma-informed training?
Nick Smith
I thank my hon. Friend for raising this important topic, and it is great that she has good local services. I have already outlined the training and guidance we currently have on offer. The Commission is keen to ensure that Members are well supported in this area and is open to suggestions to develop the training offer. I will ask officials to get in touch with my hon. Friend.
Josh Newbury (Cannock Chase) (Lab)
The Second Church Estates Commissioner (Marsha De Cordova)
No parish is required to make payments to the national Church institutions. The parish share, or common fund, is a financial contribution that a parish makes to the diocese to help fund clergy stipends, pensions and housing, including mutual support for ministries in less affluent areas.
Josh Newbury
Whether it is holding coffee mornings to bring people together, stepping in to provide activities for young people where council services have disappeared, or providing affordable spaces for community groups, our churches are part of the fabric of Cannock Chase, but what they do carries a cost. One parish in my constituency saw its parish share reduced from £35,000 to £15,000, yet even that lower figure required it to draw on reserves, which are now exhausted. What assessment have the Church Commissioners made of how many parishes are in a similar situation, and what support might be available to those churches once their reserves have run out?
Marsha De Cordova
My hon. Friend is absolutely right to point out the importance of churches in providing community support and care, which are essential in many local areas. On the specific case in his parish, I would be happy to put him in touch with the diocese of Lichfield so that he can discuss his concerns more broadly. On a wider note, the Church Commissioners are supporting parishes in the lowest-income communities with over £133 million of investment, representing a 46% increase on the previous funding window.
Andrew Pakes (Peterborough) (Lab/Co-op)
Mr Speaker
Order. May I remind Members that they are meant to stand up when asking a question? We are back to school; this is the first day of term. Let’s get some memory power!
Marsha De Cordova
The Church remains deeply concerned about the ongoing worldwide persecution on the grounds of faith and belief, including recent cases in Sudan, Afghanistan, Palestine, India and many others, and all these countries have featured high on the most recent Open Doors world watch list. Alongside the UN Secretary-General, the Church believes that whenever one minority group is persecuted, no one is safe.
Andrew Pakes
Thank you, Mr Speaker—I stand rightly chastised.
To me, one of the most important aspects of being a Christian is being part of a global fellowship, and the Church of England stands as a light on the hill for our global community. I have been contacted on numerous occasions by churches and fellow Christians in my community who are deeply worried about the persecution of fellow Christians in Nigeria, and that is on top of the increasing persecution of Christians that we are seeing in other countries around the world. Given that the Church of England has a special role in our global fellowship, could my hon. Friend outline what more it can do in speaking out and providing solidarity with Christians in Nigeria and other parts of the world?
Marsha De Cordova
As my hon. Friend mentions, in parts of Nigeria Christian communities continue to face considerable persecution, particularly from Fulani militia and Boko Haram. This has been happening for many decades. Senior members of the Church have frequently visited and written to the Nigerian Government ahead of elections, urging them not to exploit ethnic or religious divisions, finance violence or pursue electoral success at the nation’s expense. The wider Anglican communion and its agencies continue to offer support, financial aid and education in that space. The bishops in the other place raise cases and the experience of Nigerian Christians with the UK Government, and I invite my hon. Friend to raise such cases with the Government as well.
Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)
Marsha De Cordova
Across the country, churches provide holiday clubs, activities and safe spaces for children and families, often in partnership with organisations such as Lighthouse. These groups help young people to develop skills and the confidence to become responsible, active participants in their local communities.
Greg Smith
Over the summer, I was delighted to visit Lighthouse Princes Risborough for both its opening and closing ceremonies. It welcomed 450 local children over a week for fun activities, with a lot of chaos—I may have been gunged in the closing ceremony—but all underpinned by Christian teaching. Similar schemes run in Great Missenden and Haddenham, too. Will the hon. Lady join me in thanking Eleyna Kibble and her massive team of volunteers, trustees and church leaders for putting on such an incredible programme? More fundamentally, what is the Church doing centrally to underpin and support community-led and church-led programmes such as this?
Marsha De Cordova
I have to say that sounds like a wonderful visit—despite the hon. Member being gunged—and I join him in thanking Lighthouse in Princes Risborough, and in Great Missenden and Haddenham, for its incredible work in his constituency, and huge thanks go to Eleyna Kibble and the team of volunteers. We know that without volunteers none of these schemes can be delivered. Since 2019, the diocese of Oxford has given over 300 financial grants, totalling £5.9 million, to its parishes to host youth groups and Lighthouse holiday clubs. The Church is committed to and will continue to support community projects such as these in their areas across the country.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
Marsha De Cordova
Family hubs are a crucial one-stop shop for families to access vital support in one place, and the Church of England supports this with other denominations through the ChurchWorks Commission, which has produced helpful guidance and resources for churches and local authorities. That includes a toolkit that sets out how churches can be involved through signposting referrals, the use of buildings and by running specific services.
Jim Shannon
I thank the Second Church Estates Commissioner very much for her answer. St Mark’s church in Newtownards, in my Strangford constituency, held a brilliant summer scheme this year, offering games, songs and crafts for children from the local community. The church has the facilities and capacity to provide more activities and support for families throughout the year. However, with additional funding it could do much more. Given the need for central Government funding, what steps can she and the Government take to ensure that community organisations such as St Mark’s have access to the funding they want and need to support local families and communities all the year round?
Marsha De Cordova
May I say how delighted I was to see the hon. Member’s name on the Order Paper? He did not have to bob this time. I join him in congratulating churches on the valuable role their play in supporting young people, and I thank him for raising the excellent work of churches in Newtownards. Following my exchange with the right hon. Member for The Wrekin (Mark Pritchard), I wrote to the Local Government Minister and the Children’s Minister to discuss how faith-based organisations can work more closely with local authorities to expand youth provision. Supporting young people is part of the Church of England’s Growing Younger priority, backed by a £1 billion investment over the next nine years. I would be happy to put the hon. Member in touch with the team and officials at Church House for further information. I also want to encourage all local authorities to see the great work that partnering with churches can deliver in supporting and providing opportunities for young people.
Dr Marie Tidball (Penistone and Stocksbridge) (Lab)
Mr Speaker, it is good to see you after recess.
Over the summer, I attended a packed meeting about saving St John’s church in Dodworth in my constituency, a grade 2 listed building that has been at the heart of my community for over 180 years and wants to serve that community by providing more services to children and young people and to older adults to prevent loneliness. However, it is currently temporarily closed and under threat of permanent closure due to urgent structural building work being needed. Those in our community want to save it, and I am working with them to reopen it and secure its long-term future to serve our community and our community groups, including by fundraising £250,000 and finding ways to meet the building’s ongoing costs. Can my hon. Friend advise me on how we can access funding and support from the Church of England and any other relevant funding pots for St John’s to ensure that this vital community space has a bright future.
Marsha De Cordova
I congratulate my hon. Friend on being a steadfast voice for her constituents and for St John’s church, which is clearly providing great support services for children and young people, as well as for adults. Churches are the cornerstones of our communities. I would be happy to write to my hon. Friend with more details about funding opportunities and ways that the church can seek to raise funds locally to help, potentially, to save the church. Is that okay?
Richard Baker (Glenrothes and Mid Fife) (Lab)
Marsha De Cordova
The unacceptable use of Christianity to exclude or intimidate others is deeply offensive and frankly deeply concerning. The Church has established a working group to support parishes with theological, practical and pastoral resources, along with best practice advice. Recent work includes guidance on flying flags and webinars on the theology of patriotism.
Richard Baker
Does my hon. Friend share my concern about the promotion of Christian nationalist ideology in supporting the activities of the far right in this country and its poisonous propaganda of hate and division? Will she urge the Church of England to do all it can to counter Christian nationalism, and show that the true message of Christianity is love, compassion and respect for all?
Marsha De Cordova
My hon. Friend is spot on. He raises a really important issue, and I completely share his concerns about the misuse of Christian ideology. Church representatives are discussing and sharing their experiences of Christian nationalism with partners and churches across the nations of the United Kingdom, including the Church of Scotland. We all know that, throughout the Bible, we are called to learn to do right, seek justice, defend the oppressed, take up the cause of the fatherless and plead the case of the widow. When we think about and reflect on the Bible, we see that the greatest commandment of all is to love the Lord our God with all our hearts, but also to love our neighbour as ourselves. The people mentioned by my hon. Friend are neither patriots nor Christians, and they display little or no understanding of the faith that they profess to support.
Perran Moon (Camborne and Redruth) (Lab)
Sir Jeremy Wright (Kenilworth and Southam)
The Electoral Commission has made no formal assessment of this. It would be a matter for Parliament to introduce such legal protections. It is prescribed in law that poll cards and ballot papers must be provided in English or Welsh, but there are no other prescribed language requirements relating to election materials. The commission translates voter materials, including voter registration forms, into a range of languages, informed by census data and community insights on voter needs.
Perran Moon
Meur ras ha myttin da, Mr Speaker. Since January this year, Kernewek, the Cornish language, has enjoyed part III protection under the European charter for regional or minority languages, alongside Welsh and Scottish Gaelic. In the light of that recognition, what steps can the Electoral Commission take to review its policies and guidance to ensure that Cornish speakers are not treated less favourably in elections than speakers of other protected minority languages?
Sir Jeremy Wright
I apologise to the hon. Gentleman that I cannot respond to him in Cornish.
Sir Jeremy Wright
I will not try, Mr Speaker. As the hon. Gentleman may know, the Electoral Commission is in discussion with his local authority at the moment, and I know it would welcome any further representations —[Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
Order. Mr Perkins, you just walked right in front of the Member who is asking the question.
Mr Speaker
There is something going wrong with the House. Can we please get back to remembering our courtesies to other Members when they are asking questions?
Sir Jeremy Wright
I know the Electoral Commission will welcome any further representations that the hon. Member for Camborne and Redruth (Perran Moon) wants to make. As I say, the commission keeps the languages it chooses to translate materials into under review.
Sonia Kumar (Dudley) (Lab)
The Second Church Estates Commissioner (Marsha De Cordova)
The Church has a long history of working across faiths to ensure community cohesion. Most dioceses have an interfaith adviser who advises—[Interruption.]
Mr Speaker
Order. I think I am being instructed on who sits where. Mr Perkins, when you came through the door, you walked directly into my line of sight to Perran Moon. It blocks my vision when you walk in front of another Member. I do not like being challenged on something when I am absolutely correct.
Marsha De Cordova
I will start from the top. The Church has a long history of working across faiths to ensure community cohesion. Most dioceses have an interfaith adviser who advises clergy and congregations about their interfaith engagement, promoting community cohesion. That work is supported through the national presence and engagement programme.
Sonia Kumar
One of the Church’s greatest strengths is its ability to bring communities together. At a time of heightened community tensions, opportunities to bring all faith leaders together are ever more important. Over the summer, I worked closely with local faith leaders in my constituency to build resilience and manage the situation—an attack on one is an attack on all. Will my hon. Friend set out how the Church can strengthen dialogue, support cohesion and help communities resist division?
Marsha De Cordova
I congratulate my hon. Friend on the work that she is doing in her constituency on bringing our communities together. She rightly points out that the Church has a key role to play in drawing our communities together—both to protect them, and for peace and social justice. The Church supports the work of the Church Urban Fund and Near Neighbours, whose central aim is to promote interfaith understanding and stronger community cohesion. As I mentioned in my previous answer, the Church has established a working group with the bishops to promote community cohesion in response to some of the deepening political polarisation. I hope to provide an update on that work in due course.
Blake Stephenson (Mid Bedfordshire) (Con)
Marsha De Cordova
Yes, the Church Commissioners intend to proceed with Project Spire, as we continue to regard the historic links to African chattel enslavement with profound regret.
Blake Stephenson
Around the country, particularly in Mid Bedfordshire, parish churches are struggling to find the funds to save their historic buildings. Do the Church Commissioners not believe that the time, money and energy spent examining and absolving the Church’s historic transgressions could have been better spent bringing hope and belonging to future generations and saving our historic churches?
Marsha De Cordova
I want to take this opportunity to make it clear that Project Spire is being funded out of the commissioners’ own income. None of the money given in parish collections goes towards funding the project. It is also worth pointing out that, over the next three years, the commissioners are distributing £1.6 billion to provide record levels of support for Church ministry and mission across England. It is my sincere hope that Project Spire delivers exactly what the hon. Member points to: a sense of belonging in the Church for future generations. I also highlight the words shared by the Archbishop of Canterbury in her historic visit to the Cape Coast Castle in Ghana, which I too have visited. She said:
“I pray not only in lament for the Church’s involvement in the slave trade, but also for hope—hope that the God of healing can bring justice and reconciliation to all who are still impacted by its legacy.”
Liz Twist (Blaydon and Consett) (Lab)
Marsha De Cordova
Church officials are in regular contact with Historic England and the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport regarding the places of worship renewal fund and are closely monitoring parish experiences of using the scheme. Following feedback, Historic England has also published a funding directory to help identify alternative sources of support.
Liz Twist
In communities like Blaydon and Consett, historic parish churches, such as St Ives’ church in Leadgate—known locally as the miners’ cathedral—are irreplaceable heritage assets, but carry huge repair burdens. What discussions has my hon. Friend had with the Department to ensure that round 2 funding is targeted towards former industrial communities with larger conservation needs?
Marsha De Cordova
My hon. Friend is right to point to the importance of historic buildings—such as St Ives’, the miners’ cathedral—to local communities, and the pressure that they all face. Historic England is managing applications and has indicated that it is measuring need and using an at-risk register as well as a local deprivation index to identify the best places to prioritise. It will be easier to assess the effectiveness of the new scheme once it has had a little more time to bed in. I will ensure that my hon. Friend receives details of the funding directory, which I hope will help parishes in her constituency to identify suitable sources of funding that they may be eligible for.
Jackdaw and Rosebank Oil and Gas Fields
(1 day, 7 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Urgent Questions are proposed each morning by backbench MPs, and up to two may be selected each day by the Speaker. Chosen Urgent Questions are announced 30 minutes before Parliament sits each day.
Each Urgent Question requires a Government Minister to give a response on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Andrew Bowie (West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine) (Con)
(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero if she will make a statement on the future of the Jackdaw and Rosebank oil fields following the closure of the public consultation.
The Minister for Climate Transition (Katie White)
First, I welcome and congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his new position as the shadow Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero.
The Scottish Court of Session quashed the original consents for these projects in January 2025. We published supplementary guidance in June 2025 to implement the Finch judgment, under which end-use combustion emissions must be taken into account in environmental impact assessments for oil and gas production projects. At that time, the Government reopened the window for applications.
The Jackdaw and Rosebank fields are each subject to a live regulatory process. The public notice periods, which, as the hon. Gentleman knows, closed on 10 and 17 August respectively, were part of that regulatory process. The Secretary of State will consider the representations received and will make separate decisions on each project in due course. I appreciate the strength of interest in this decision, but it would not be appropriate for me to comment further on either project.
I have to say that it is a little rich hearing the Conservatives suddenly talk about protecting jobs and caring about Aberdeen. Let us look at the facts: by the end of 2016, under the Conservatives, more than 120,000 UK oil and gas jobs had gone,
“more than a third of them in Scotland and the vast majority in the north-east”.
Those are not my words; they are the words of the Conservative MSP Liam Kerr. And what happened to Aberdeen on their watch? The independent think-tank Centre for Cities calls it “Aberdeen’s lost decade”. It found that between 2010 and 2022, the city lost around 9,000 jobs under the Conservatives. Real household incomes per head fell 6.7%, and nearly 15,000 people left the city. In fact, Aberdeen was one of just two of Britain’s 62 largest cities and towns to have fewer jobs than in 2010.
I say gently to the hon. Gentleman that that is an abysmal record from his party in government. He may have a selective memory about the Conservatives’ record in the north-east of Scotland, but I do not think his constituents do.
Andrew Bowie
I do not think the Conservative party will take any lectures from Labour on records in the north-east of Scotland, given the result in Aberdeen South only a few months ago, but I would like to thank the Minister for warmly welcoming me to my new position.
The public consultation on Rosebank and Jackdaw has now closed, so the Department can no longer hide behind process, delay or consultation exercises. It has dithered, prevaricated and delayed for far too long. Industry and workers in and around Aberdeen, and indeed across the United Kingdom, need an answer now. We have a new Prime Minister and a new Secretary of State, so how about a new direction? That is what our oil and gas industry needs. That is what the thousands of workers in it, who do not know what lies ahead of them, need.
I have a simple question for the Minister: will the Government finally approve Rosebank and Jackdaw—something we already did in government—or will they continue the previous Secretary of State’s campaign against Britain’s North sea oil and gas industry? It was the previous Secretary of State who refused to appeal the ruling against the decision over two years ago, the previous Secretary of State who refused to fast-track the consultation process, and the previous Secretary of State who refused to act in the national interest. This goes beyond Jackdaw and Rosebank alone; it is about whether Great Britain chooses to produce its own energy or become ever more dependent on imports from overseas—dirtier and more expensive foreign imports. Where does the Minister want the energy that we need to come from if the Government do not get on and approve Rosebank and Jackdaw?
The question today is a simple one, but the answer could be transformative—for the North sea industry, for the north-east of Scotland and for the United Kingdom’s economic and energy security. When will the Government approve Jackdaw and Rosebank?
Katie White
As I say, I appreciate that there is a huge amount of interest in the process, but I am sure we can all agree that we want this robust process to take its course. The worst thing that could happen would be something prejudicing or interfering with the process, and we end up having to rerun it. We will be following that due process. As I said, the process ended in August, and the Secretary of State will be taking the decisions in due course.
Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)
As the Prime Minister said on Tuesday, our energy supply and our energy security are not a question of having either oil and gas, or renewables; they are about both. It is a great pity that proper process was not followed in 2022 or 2023. [Interruption.] The shadow Secretary of State says that it was; if that is true, why was it possible to challenge that in the courts? That is why it is really important that the Government get it right this time around.
On North sea oil and gas, it is really important that we recognise the importance of the supply chain, the workers, their companies and their communities, because we need those people if we are to make the energy transition that is so critical to our future. Does the Minister agree that it is vital we support them while we gear up on renewables, so that they are available to contribute and can make that transition happen as fast and effectively as possible?
Katie White
I thank my hon. Friend for his considered and thoughtful question. He is right. We are already drilling in the North sea, and we are clear that oil and gas have an important role. Under this Prime Minister, we have a pragmatic approach. It is important that we think about the workers, and he is right to think about the supply chain, both for the industries of today and the clean industries of the future.
Pippa Heylings (South Cambridgeshire) (LD)
This summer, I saw at first hand the devastation that wildfires fuelled by climate change caused to Dunwich heath and the communities around it; my thoughts are with those impacted by wildfires nationwide this summer. That is why it is so shocking to see some parties across the House trading conservation of our environment for a scorched earth policy. We Liberal Democrat Members do not and will not accept assertions from the Conservatives and Reform that North sea licences would magically create billions to bring people’s bills down now. But we do need to bring people’s bills down—by investing in home-grown renewable power, while recognising that we need some oil and gas for decades to come. However, we must leave no part of the country behind in this pursuit. Will the Minister guarantee a genuinely just transition, with good-quality clean energy jobs, while protecting workers, supply chains and communities?
Katie White
The hon. Lady brings her usual passion and commitment to the debate. She talked about the wildfires over the summer; the Prime Minister announced yesterday that we would have a wildfire summit. On today’s topic, we will continue with the robust process. I appreciate the strength of interest both in this place and outside, but given the quasi-judicial nature of the process, we cannot get involved further in it.
Mr Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)
The Government are right to take their time and make sure that they get this right—we saw what happened when the previous Government did not do the work that was needed. This is a delicately balanced decision. The world already has all the oil it will need until 2050, so further exploration would increase the amount of oil there is, drive down prices and slow down the transition to renewables, but there is the strong argument that we will be importing oil and gas, and that new licences would slightly reduce the amount we import. My hon. Friend is right to take the time to ensure that we get this right. She should listen carefully to all the arguments being made on both sides of the House. Those jobs are important, but so is the transition that the Government are rightly committed to.
Katie White
I thank my hon. Friend, who has a long-standing interest in this area. He is right that we need to take our time with the process, respect its robustness and think about the implications. I know that the Secretary of State will be doing that, and will consider all the evidence that will be supplied to her.
Douglas Lumsden (Aberdeen South) (Con)
I must admit that I am angry and disappointed when I hear Members on other Benches seeming to cast aside jobs in my constituency. On 18 June, the people of Aberdeen South sent the huge message to both this Labour Government and the SNP Government in Holyrood that they will not stand back and watch their jobs being destroyed. Every month, 1,000 jobs are being lost in the UK oil and gas industry. Every month, the Government dither and delay, which means more jobs lost. Does the Minister not accept that those workers deserve clarity, and not to have the decision kicked further down the road? They need assurance that their jobs will be saved.
Katie White
I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising that question so passionately on behalf of his constituents. I agree that jobs are key; that is why, when it comes to the North sea, we have expanded training and support, and the new jobs service. I also agree that we want clarity on this decision. Regretfully, we cannot say a huge amount about the process today, because we want that process to be respected. It has to be a robust process, and it is quasi-judicial; I am very concerned to be respectful of that. I want to ensure, for his constituents and for the rest of the country, that a clear decision is made that respects that robust process.
Torcuil Crichton (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (Lab)
I can assure the hon. Member for Aberdeen South (Douglas Lumsden) that this issue is about jobs not just in his constituency, but in Na h-Eileanan an Iar and across the whole UK. I have already presented the new Prime Minister with a map of the UK showing the postcode of payslips; almost every constituency is affected. I echo the Prime Minister’s words to the hon. Member for Boston and Skegness (Richard Tice) the other day; he said:
“we need to be pragmatic—we will still need to rely on oil and gas for some years to come”—[Official Report, 1 September 2026; Vol. 790, c. 44.]
and that it would be a mistake to say that it has to be one or the other, when we need both. I remind the Minister making this decision that, when it comes to Rosebank and Jackdaw, we do need both.
Katie White
As we have all heard, there is a significant amount of interest in , thoughts and opinions in this place and outside. The Prime Minister has said that we will take a pragmatic approach, and oil and gas will remain part of our future going forward but, in terms of this specific process and those specific decisions, I cannot comment any further today.
Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)
The Minister is surely aware that there is no route to net zero that does not go through oil and gas hydrocarbons, and that not exploiting resources on the UK continental shelf leaves us reliant on imports, which also has carbon consequences that must be taken into account. If we do not maintain critical mass in the supply chain in the north-east of Scotland and elsewhere, it will be more difficult to develop the next generation of clean, renewable energy—particularly marine renewables, which are being developed in my constituency. Finally, can she just remember that we are talking about two different commodities here? It is not helpful to speak about oil and gas as if they were the same thing.
Katie White
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his thoughts. Oil and gas will be part of our energy mix, and the environmental impact assessment that is taking place will take account of Scope 3 emissions. He is right to mention, as others have, that the North sea offers opportunities in both clean energy and fossil fuel energy, and we need to think about it in a holistic sense.
Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)
Personally, I cannot see that Rosebank is compatible with meeting our climate objectives, but I recognise that the process should be followed. Green Alliance has reported that the gas being wasted in the North sea would be enough to heat 570,000 homes. It has been over a year since the Government issued a methane action plan—I think the Minister took it over from me. Methane is more than 80 times more powerful than CO2 in the short term, so what are we doing to reduce venting and flaring in the North sea?
Katie White
I thank my hon. Friend for all her work on this, not only in her previous role, but before she came to this place and throughout her time here. I am grateful for her awareness of the process. She raises an important point about methane: it is a very potent greenhouse gas, and reducing venting and flaring would represent a cost and efficiency saving. We should be using our energy efficiently. I am meeting with international colleagues in the coming weeks to discuss the issue, but we are also working on this domestically. I appreciate her raising that point, and we will continue to work on it.
David Mundell (Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale) (Con)
The BBC and others have reported that importing liquefied natural gas is 10 times more polluting than pipeline gas. Does the Minister agree with that assessment? Further, has any assessment been made of what the impact of Jackdaw would be on reducing pollution?
Katie White
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his specific questions. I have not seen the BBC’s report; I would be very happy for him to send it to me. As I said to the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael), Scope 3 emissions will be part of the environmental impact assessment, which will be given to the Secretary of State and will feed into her decision-making process.
Richard Baker (Glenrothes and Mid Fife) (Lab)
If Jackdaw and Rosebank proceed, they will create and sustain thousands of skilled jobs and apprenticeships, which will be crucial to developing our renewables sector further in the future. Does the Minister agree that this should be a crucial factor in the decision?
Katie White
I thank my hon. Friend for raising the issue of jobs. Since we came into government, we have expanded the North sea jobs service to support workers. He is right that there is a huge crossover between renewables and oil and gas workers. It has struck me that at every wind farm we visit, we usually hear a Scottish accent. As I say, the Secretary of State will be aware of the point he makes about jobs.
Kirsty Blackman (Aberdeen North) (SNP)
There is a geographical divide on this issue starker than I have ever seen in this place. Across all parties, every Member representing a Scottish constituency has stressed the issue of jobs, and how important this is to the north-east of Scotland. If that does not make it clear that Scotland needs to be in control of energy policy, I do not know what does.
The Minister has mentioned two things about the consultation. She has said that a decision will be taken in due course. Does “in due course” mean before the Budget? Does it mean in 2026, 2027 or even 2029? Could she pin it down slightly further than that? On Scope 3 emissions, will she be very clear and ensure that what is published is what the right hon. Member for Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale (David Mundell) asked for: a comparison of how much the import of LNG would affect the environment, as against how much approving Jackdaw would affect the environment?
Katie White
I thank the hon. Lady for her question. I admire her trying to lure me into a conversation on independence and devolution. I am afraid that that is not part of the scope of the discussion today, so I will not go into that.
On the timeline, I have said that a decision will be taken in due course. We are fully aware of the need for clarity, but the most important thing for me is the robustness of the process. The worst outcome for everybody would be if a comment I made today ended up inadvertently undermining the process. I agree on making sure that we have a just transition, and on supporting our Scottish workers when it comes to the jobs and industries of the future.
Graeme Downie (Dunfermline and Dollar) (Lab)
I think we need a pragmatic approach on oil and gas—one that is focused on people and prioritising British businesses and communities. I want to see a positive decision on both Rosebank and Jackdaw, but does the Minister agree that we are in this position—with less clarity and less security about what is going to happen—because of the Conservatives’ abject failure to reduce our reliance on fossil fuels and to run a properly managed decision process on Jackdaw and Rosebank in the first place, all while overseeing an absolute failure to effectively transition to a low-carbon economy, and the loss of over 120,000 jobs in the industry?
Katie White
I thank my hon. Friend for his excellent analysis of why we have ended up here; he is absolutely right. It is on all of us to respect the process. I think that the feeling of the House is that we want clarity, and the way to achieve that is by having a robust process. It is hugely important that we respect that today. I understand the amount of interest in this, but as I said in my opening remarks, I find it a little audacious that this is something that we have had an about turn on—and it is not the only thing that this shadow Secretary of State has had an about turn on.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
The fact is that the gas and oil coming from the North sea is declining year by year. The sad reality is that without a decision on the two fields, Jackdaw and Rosebank, we will be totally dependent on expensive inputs. I understand the Minister not wanting to interfere in the quasi-judicial process, but will she accept the principle that it is far better for us to supply our own oil and gas rather than importing expensive oil and gas from abroad?
Katie White
I appreciate the hon. Member’s respect for the process and the need for clarity and robustness. He makes the important point that it is a declining basin and, therefore, we also need to make sure that we have other sources of energy. That is why record investment in clean energy has been secured from the Government and the private sector to make sure that we have as much energy in that area.
Johanna Baxter (Paisley and Renfrewshire South) (Lab)
The Conservative party failed to invest in clean power, and now there is a suggestion that it failed to invest altogether. Will the Minister tell the House what action this Government are taking to ensure that overseas wars do not increase my constituents’ bills, making the cost of living unaffordable?
Katie White
I thank my hon. Friend, who is passionate about her constituency and about this area. She is right that we are at the behest of the fossil fuel rollercoaster, and we have all seen the impacts of that over the last few years. We have had two international energy crises in the last four years, and we are, at the moment, a price-taker on the international fossil fuel markets, which has an impact on our constituents. That is why our Secretary of State is focusing on energy affordability as her priority.
Dr Ellie Chowns (North Herefordshire) (Green)
We cannot discuss this issue without recognising that the climate breakdown is already costing us hugely: the hottest summer ever, the worst arable harvest ever, and the Met Office says that it was 130 times more likely that we faced this crisis this year. Just today, the World Meteorological Organisation has said that climate breakdown is super-charging natural phenomena such as El Niño. The shadow Secretary of State says that North sea communities need a new direction: yes, a just transition to clean energy for the future, not the dirty energy of the old. Will the Minister recognise that the climate damage created by Rosebank and Jackdaw will hugely outweigh any potential economic benefits and therefore rule them out? Fossil fuels must stay in the ground if we are to have a liveable future.
Katie White
I thank the hon. Lady for her question and for her passion on this topic. The environmental impact assessment that has been part of the process will take account of Scope 3 emissions. I can say no more about the Rosebank and Jackdaw decisions today, but what I will say is that this Government take climate change incredibly seriously. I hope that she heard the new Prime Minister talking about it on Tuesday and heard his commitment. He will also go to Turkey for the COP this year.
Lizzi Collinge (Morecambe and Lunesdale) (Lab)
As a member of the Energy Security and Net Zero Committee, I have taken evidence on the complexity of the North sea oil and gas discussion and the long-term decline of that mature basin. As the Member of Parliament for two nuclear power stations, I will not take lectures on energy jobs and their importance, particularly given the lack of progress on nuclear under the Conservatives. I think the complexity of the discussion is lost on the Opposition, and some of their assertions, particularly on the prices of new drilling, is simply not based on any evidence. Although this is a complex discussion, does the Minister agree that what is clear and simple is that climate change is an existential threat, and that a clean and fair energy transition is vital to tackling climate change?
Katie White
I have been subject to my hon. Friend’s tough questioning on the Select Committee, so it is a joy to have it in the House as well. I cannot say any more today on the specific process because, as we have collectively agreed, its robustness is key, and I am cautious of saying anything that would jeopardise that because we want that clarity of decision. At the same time, as I have just said to the hon. Member for North Herefordshire (Dr Chowns), we know that climate change is a key issue. We saw the wildfires this summer and, only this week, we saw the Prime Minister talking in his first interventions about committing to the COP and having a wildfire summit.
John Glen (Salisbury) (Con)
I listened carefully to what the Minister said about the process, and I respect that. But most people who take a pretty level-headed, pragmatic view of the need for a transition over time still cannot get their heads around the short-term reality: when we have so much turmoil in the middle east, why would we extend the time that we are not relying on our own available resources? Also, speaking as a member of the Treasury Committee, when it would generate £1 billion to £2 billion of VAT receipts alone, and given the severe impact on the economy of the north-east of Scotland of not doing so, can the decision not be made more quickly based on principled guidance from this Government?
Katie White
As for the timeline, as I say, the decision will come in due course, but the robustness of the process is absolutely key. I have already stated to the House that it was only in August that these consultations closed. There is a lot of interest in this place and outside, and our Secretary of State wants to consider things properly to ensure that we can expedite the decision as soon as we can, but that has to be done properly or we will all end up back here again. Let us ensure that we respect the process, and we will do that. I have heard the right hon. Member’s thoughts, but there is interest both in here and outside.
Mr Jonathan Brash (Hartlepool) (Lab)
One of my great frustrations in the debate around energy security is the way that populism and ideology pollute the debate. Hartlepool has one of the largest clean-energy economies in England, through new nuclear, which some oppose, and through renewables, which others oppose, but both of which I support. I also support drilling in the North sea. It is good for jobs and good for the economy. Will the Minister take the message back to her Department that we must approve Jackdaw and Rosebank and go further to expand drilling in the North sea?
Katie White
I thank my hon. Friend for his comments and interest in this and other energy decisions. I cannot make any further comments on these particular projects because of the robust regulatory process that is under way.
Graham Leadbitter (Moray West, Nairn and Strathspey) (SNP)
Both Labour and the Conservatives are guilty of failing oil and gas workers by driving uncertainty in this debate: the Conservatives by their U-turn on climate change policy, something which both the oil and gas sector and the renewables sector are deeply unhappy with, and the Labour Government by their complete lack of pace in decision making on regulatory issues, such as the transmission network use of system—TNUoS—charges, the 18 months to decide what is happening at Ardersier, and now on Jackdaw and Rosebank. The whole energy sector needs pace in and clarity of decision making. Scotland would make this a priority with the full powers of independence. Will the Government put the same pace and effort in?
Katie White
I agree with the hon. Member that the Opposition have made a certain number of U-turns, and those U-turns keep coming so we will continue to see what their position is. Also, their lack of clarity on strategic planning for our energy systems—they are not listening—has had regretful consequences. Where I would disagree is that the deadline was in August, and everybody would expect us to listen to that evidence and take account of all that input. On not moving at pace, nobody would say that this Government have not moved at pace in terms of our clean energy mission.
Mike Reader (Northampton South) (Lab)
The Energy Security and Net Zero Committee heard that production rose by a fifth between 2014 and 2019, when there was a much more favourable taxation regime, and that jobs continued to fall in the sector. The evidence is clear: approving Rosebank and Jackdaw will not protect jobs. The sector is unfortunately in decline. But does the Minister agree that if we can fix the transition costs that are stopping renewables, end the ridiculous delays from the National Energy System Operator on connections, end the SNP’s blocking of nuclear and, of course, ramp up support and training for workers, that will help revive the sector and make it sustainable long term?
Katie White
I welcome my hon. Friend’s interest in this matter and the wider debate. I appreciate the strength of feeling—I can hear the strength of feeling on both sides of this House. I cannot say any more about the specific process and the decisions that are under way, but we are doing everything we can to ensure that our energy system works efficiently and moves at pace. I look forward to continuing to engaging with him on that.
Dr Roz Savage (South Cotswolds) (LD)
We have heard a lot from the Government about energy security, but if Rosebank were to go ahead, we would not own the oil or set its price and most of it would not be refined here. Thousands of homes in my constituency are off the gas grid and are heated with oil bought by the tankful at whatever the international price happens to be that week. Will the Minister explain what security a barrel sold on the international market at the international price buys for the households of the South Cotswolds?
Katie White
I thank the hon. Lady for her interest in this area. Getting into any defence of specific areas may lead me to potentially say things that I should not say as it is a decision for the Secretary of State. She will take into account the environmental impact assessment, and we are working through the large amount of evidence that has come into the Department.
Catherine Fookes (Monmouthshire) (Lab)
I will say from the outset that I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy): I am afraid I do not agree with drilling for oil in Rosebank. It would not take a penny off bills, and it would absolutely blow our carbon emissions targets out the water. The Conservatives are living in another world if they have not lived through the summer that we have all lived through, with drought and wildfires all across south Wales. We need to go hard on the green transition. Does the Minister agree that we should keep to our targets in the Climate Change Act 2008 and that we should not agree with the Conservatives to repeal it?
Katie White
I note my hon. Friend’s opinion. As I say, there is a strength of feeling on the different sides of the House. We are noting that, but I will make no comment. On her question about the Climate Change Act, I was absolutely baffled at the Conservatives’ position. It was not a position that the shadow Secretary of State took when he was in power, and many in his party would be ashamed. I noted the article in the Financial Times from a former Environment Secretary, who referred to it as “tin-eared”.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
Our long-term goal must be energy independence so that we are never again at the mercy of volatile foreign regimes for our basic power needs. National Energy Action Northern Ireland has highlighted that roughly 39% of households in Northern Ireland are currently living in fuel poverty. That is compounded by the fact that 60% of homes in Northern Ireland still rely on heating oil and are subject to unregulated markets. Given that the public consultation has now concluded, will the Minister assure the House that the final decision will strike a balance between our environmental responsibilities and the urgent need to protect domestic energy security, shield hard-pressed working families from soaring utility bills and safeguard the thousands of vital jobs supported by our domestic energy sector?
Katie White
I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising those important points. The Secretary of State has put energy affordability at the heart of our agenda, and we will continue to do that. She has worked on fuel poverty for many years and is hugely passionate about it. When the strait of Hormuz and middle east crisis began, we took action on heating oil, and the Government are investing a record amount in warm homes. We need to do that at pace to make sure it is felt in constituencies and postcodes across our islands.
Luke Myer (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Lab)
I echo the comments made by the Chair of the Energy Security and Net Zero Committee. At risk of inviting criticism from the left and the right, I plead for some nuance in this debate. These are two materially different prospects, and of course one of them is able to feed directly into our domestic market. I urge Ministers to make sure that the decision is made based on evidence rather than just ideology.
Katie White
I assure my hon. Friend that we are very much in favour of evidence-based policymaking.
Chris Ward (Brighton Kemptown and Peacehaven) (Lab)
Given the climate emergency that we are already living through, this is obviously a hugely significant decision for the Secretary of State. While I respect that the Minister cannot comment on the merits of each proposal, surely she can comment on how the House will be able to scrutinise any final decision. When a final decision is taken, can she confirm from the Dispatch Box that there will be a chance to debate and vote on it in the House?
Katie White
I thank my hon. Friend for his suggestion. He is absolutely right that the robustness of this process is key. We need to ensure that we respect the process, which will lead to clarity on the decision; that is the most important thing for us.
Steve Yemm (Mansfield) (Lab)
A former Prime Minister, Gordon Brown, has recently argued that the future of the North sea is not about a choice between oil and gas and renewables, but about protecting jobs as workers transition into the industries of the future. Does the Minister agree that the reason projects like Jackdaw and Rosebank matter so much is that they provide jobs, investment, skills and further tax revenues today, and that a just transition has to protect those workers and communities, rather than leaving them behind?
Katie White
I respect our former leaders, who have engaged many times in the energy conversation. My hon. Friend highlights many different areas that are impacted. The North sea does have an impact in each of those areas, and the Secretary of State will make a decision in due course, taking account of the new evidence that she has received.
Bluetongue Virus in Livestock
(1 day, 7 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Urgent Questions are proposed each morning by backbench MPs, and up to two may be selected each day by the Speaker. Chosen Urgent Questions are announced 30 minutes before Parliament sits each day.
Each Urgent Question requires a Government Minister to give a response on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Robbie Moore (Keighley and Ilkley) (Con)
(Urgent Question): To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement on bluetongue virus in livestock.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Stephen Morgan)
I begin by recognising that this is an incredibly difficult time for livestock keepers, veterinary professionals and those who are working directly on the impact of the bluetongue outbreak. Responding to outbreaks is at the core of the work of the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, and we will continue to use tried and tested methods to address this challenge.
Bluetongue affects cattle, sheep, goats, deer and camelids. It is spread by biting midges and can cause significant animal health impacts, although it poses no risk to human health or food safety. The first confirmed case of bluetongue serotype 3 in the UK this year was on 10 July in Staffordshire. As of yesterday, there have been 795 confirmed cases of bluetongue in Great Britain. We are supporting enhanced testing capacity. We have worked closely with the devolved Governments and industry throughout the outbreak, listening to farmers and jointly developing policies to ensure that farmers receive timely information and practical guidance. That has included regular disease alerts, social media updates, weekly communications to livestock keepers and a programme of industry webinars.
Vaccination remains the most effective and viable short and long-term control measure against bluetongue, both for this season and in the future. DEFRA and the Veterinary Medicines Directorate are working closely with manufacturers to monitor availability and taking proactive steps to ensure that additional vaccine stocks are made available as quickly as possible. I encourage all livestock keepers to remain vigilant, to monitor and vaccinate their animals and to report any suspicions of disease immediately.
Finally, I know that this has been a trying period for farmers, animal keepers and private vets. Support is available through Government guidance, the rural services helpline and Farming Help. We will continue to work closely with industry representatives to ensure that concerns are heard, information is shared promptly and support reaches those who need it. Through vigilance, vaccination and partnership, we will continue to meet this challenge and protect the health of our livestock sector.
Robbie Moore
Bluetongue is spreading across Britain at an unprecedented rate, devastating livestock businesses and putting farming families under immense financial and emotional pressure. I thank our vets and those on the frontline in addressing the spread of the virus.
As of yesterday, 795 cases have been confirmed this season, but there are more than 2,500 potential cases still under investigation, yet farmers and vets are being forced to wait up to three weeks for blood test results, leaving the livestock sector without a real-time picture of the outbreak. Why was testing capacity not significantly increased over the summer period, and when will Ministers clear that backlog? In hotspot areas, will a proportionate risk-based approach be adopted?
These delays are more concerning given that DEFRA’s expenditure on bluetongue testing was significantly reduced under this Labour Government by 74% in this financial year. Why did the Government allow that spending to fall so dramatically, just as the outbreak was accelerating? Ministers rightly advise farmers to vaccinate livestock, but supplies can take up to three or four weeks to arrive. Why have the Government not acted to secure adequate vaccine supplies by working more closely with vaccine manufacturers, veterinary bodies and industry?
Farmers also face mounting fallen stock disposal costs, yet repeated calls to Ministers for financial assistance have gone unanswered. Can the Government confirm today that financial assistance will be put in place, and will they review environmental permit constraints to ease carcase disposal?
Finally, bluetongue presents similar symptoms to those of foot and mouth disease, which is already present in continental Europe. With testing for bluetongue taking weeks to turn around, there is concern that a positive foot and mouth case could be hidden in the backlog. What assurances can the Minister give that he is alert to that issue and is taking action? It seems that despite concerns being raised consistently throughout the summer, Ministers have been asleep at the wheel.
Stephen Morgan
I stress that vaccination remains the only effective long-term option for disease control, and we will continue to work with keepers of susceptible animals to discuss vaccine options with their vets in order to protect animals and reduce the impact of disease. I thank the shadow Minister for his questions, and we absolutely recognise that this is a difficult time for livestock keepers and the veterinary professionals supporting them. DEFRA is working closely with livestock keepers and the industry to facilitate access to vaccinations and ensure timely information. That has included webinars, engagement events attended by 1,000 farmers, disease alerts, regular updates on gov.uk and Animal and Plant Health Agency channels, and welfare support.
I stress that the Government have acted quickly to secure increased vaccine supply. Vaccination remains the only effective long-term option for disease control, and we will continue to engage with all keepers of susceptible animals to discuss vaccine options with them. On testing capacity at the Pirbright Institute, and alpha, we have stepped up capacity for testing and work closely with industry on such issues. We will continue to work with keepers of animals to ensure that the sector is supported, and I will continue to engage with the National Sheep Association, the National Farmers’ Union and others on the issues at hand.
Terry Jermy (South West Norfolk) (Lab)
I thank the Minister for his response and his engagement with the farming community over the summer, which I know has been appreciated. Bluetongue is currently a huge concern for farmers in Norfolk, and resilience is so low that any one issue risks being the straw that breaks the camel’s back. We now have the farming profitability review and the farming road map, but will the Minister talk more about work that the Government are doing to improve resilience in the farming community?
Stephen Morgan
I thank my hon. Friend, who is a real champion for the farming community in his constituency. He recently met more than 100 farmers across his patch, and I look forward to working with him this autumn on the challenges and issues that the farming community in his constituency continues to face. He is absolutely right: our road map sets out a 25-year plan to support the farming community to build resilience, confidence and a productive sector for the future, and I know he will do everything he can to ensure that that becomes reality in his constituency.
Sarah Dyke (Glastonbury and Somerton) (LD)
As climate change extends the range of disease-carrying midges, confirmed bluetongue cases have surged to nearly 800 nationally, with thousands more suspected. Somerset and Devon are among the worst affected areas, and vets in Glastonbury and Somerton tell me that their vaccine waiting lists are now as long as their arm. Farmers face mounting costs when transporting fallen stock and paying for vaccines, and all the while they deal with the devastation of their livestock being put at risk. Farmers cannot be expected to shoulder an ever-growing share of the cost of controlling a disease that threatens our national food security, and the Government must recognise the serious financial pressure that the outbreak is placing on farmers, who are already struggling after years of neglect. What steps is the Minister taking to accelerate the vaccination roll-out, support affected farmers with financial assistance, and remove barriers to surveillance?
Stephen Morgan
I thank the hon. Member for her questions. It was a pleasure to be in the south-west in August to hear directly from farmers about some of the challenges they are facing, including farmers in the south-west affected by the bluetongue virus. I absolutely recognise the challenges it has brought them this summer, on top of a whole set of other challenges.
I must stress the importance of vaccination. That is why we have worked really closely with industry to increase the vaccine supply coming into the country. We are also working closely with the Pirbright Institute to ensure that there is extra testing capacity. We recognise the significant impact bluetongue is having on farmers. We are reviewing our processes to help expedite the confirmation of disease and we are considering what further support may be made available to farmers in the future.
Ben Goldsborough (South Norfolk) (Lab)
The date 27 August 2024 will stick with me for a very long time, because it brought the first case of bluetongue in South Norfolk. Will the Minister say specifically what action is being taken to increase APHA capacity, but also to improve mapping accounting for both confirmed and suspected cases of the disease?
Stephen Morgan
As I mentioned earlier, we have increased capacity at the Pirbright Institute and are working closely with the APHA on capacity issues. I am very happy to write to my hon. Friend on the specifics. I know he is a real champion on these issues and will continue to hold my feet to the fire on any action the Government can take.
Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)
I remind the House of my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests and also that my wife is a practising veterinary surgeon.
What is happening was predictable because it was predicted. The Government were warned by the National Audit Office in June last year that they were unprepared for outbreaks of this sort. Will the Minister tell us what actions were taken by the Department following that? The priority for the moment must be getting a better vaccine supply and faster testing turnarounds, but then there are questions that need to be answered about the lack of a proper awareness campaign earlier in the midge season, because we will be coming back to this.
Why is better information not available for vets and farmers? I vaccinated my stock last year. I could not even find out this year whether that was going to be sufficient, or whether vaccination would need to be done again. The Minister is right about the protection we get from vaccination. The second most important thing is reliable information.
Stephen Morgan
I thank the Chair of the Select Committee for his contribution. He is absolutely right that this is a serious issue that needs serious consideration. I mentioned that DEFRA has tried and tested approaches to dealing with outbreaks. There are always lessons that we can learn. I will certainly look very closely at what the report tells us and I will listen very closely to what the Select Committee may say on these issues in due course.
On communication, there is always more that we can do. We have had popular webinars and have been putting information on the gov.uk website. There has been information from the APHA as well. I also want to praise the contribution the National Farmers’ Union has made to ensure that farmers are engaged on these issues and are getting the right support at the right time.
Josh Newbury (Cannock Chase) (Lab)
Bluetongue is causing misery in my county of Staffordshire, which has seen the biggest growth in cases in our region. The more vociferous spread and longer season due to the heat this summer underlines the urgent need for disease outbreak preparedness to be a key plank of Britain’s adaptation to climate change. Is the Minister confident that the increased uptake we will hopefully see can be fulfilled? Is he willing to meet livestock farmers in my constituency to discuss the many challenges they have faced this summer?
Stephen Morgan
My hon. Friend is a real champion on farming issues and I look forward to visiting his constituency in due course to understand the challenges and opportunities farmers there are facing. I engage regularly with the livestock sector, and visited the National Sheep Association event in July. I am very happy to hear his views and concerns, and to meet the sector to understand any opportunities and challenges that continue to exist.
John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con)
Bluetongue is causing considerable concern among livestock farmers in Scotland and the Scottish Borders, with cases increasing and restrictions affecting livestock movements at a critical time of year. Indeed, the important Kelso ram sales are due to take place next week in my constituency. Given the substantial movement of sheep and cattle across the Scotland-England border, what discussions is the Minister having with the Scottish Government to ensure that vaccination, testing and movement rules are properly co-ordinated across Great Britain and do not create unnecessary barriers for farmers?
Stephen Morgan
I can assure the hon. Member that officials are working closely with the devolved nations. Indeed, I am in regular contact with my equivalents in the other nations to make sure we keep a close eye on the outbreak and do everything we can cross-border to provide support with any challenges and concerns.
Perran Moon (Camborne and Redruth) (Lab)
I thank the Minister for visiting Cornwall last month to talk to some of our farmers about their concerns. As of Tuesday, there were 117 cases in Cornwall, and—as has been mentioned—a further 2,500 are under investigation nationally. My farmers have raised their concerns about the length of time it is taking to get test results back. Can the Minister reassure my farmers that their test results will be delivered in a timely manner?
Stephen Morgan
I thank my hon. Friend for his question—I know that this issue really matters to him, based on the feedback and concerns he has received from his farmers. It was a real pleasure to be with the Prime Minister last month to announce further measures to support our farming community down in the south-west. On my hon. Friend’s broader points about capacity issues at Pirbright and testing, I will certainly take away the specific questions he has raised, but I can assure him today from the Dispatch Box that there is increased capacity to assist with those issues.
John Cooper (Dumfries and Galloway) (Con)
The midges that spread bluetongue are no respecters of the border, or of the fact that devolved issues are sent to Holyrood for consideration in Scotland. As we have heard, there are difficulties with cross-border movement—it is a huge issue—and I have also been told that in the initial stages of this outbreak, the Animal and Plant Health Agency reacted in Scotland with all the alacrity of a tranquilised sloth. The Minister has warm words about talking with his equivalent in Scotland, but we need action on the ground; there are real difficulties now, particularly with these sales coming along.
Stephen Morgan
There was a very helpful briefing for parliamentarians in August, led by my colleague Baroness Hayman, and we are very happy to replicate that so that we fully understand the cross-border issues. However, I can assure the hon. Member from the Dispatch Box that we continue to work across Governments to ensure our farmers are protected, wherever in the United Kingdom they live.
Josh Fenton-Glynn (Calder Valley) (Lab)
I welcome the new Minister to his role, and thank our DEFRA Parliamentary Private Secretaries for their typically diligent work in briefing us ahead of this urgent question. While taking part in the NFU’s excellent food and farming fellowship, I have seen how precarious profit margins are for our livestock farmers, both in Calder Valley and beyond. What steps are we going to take to support farmers managing the costs of bluetongue, including vet bills, vaccinations and fallen stock disposal?
Stephen Morgan
DEFRA is considering a whole range of measures to support the farming community, including supporting vaccination availability and expanding testing capacity, as I mentioned earlier. We will continue to evaluate measures, including the possibility of further financial support. That is an incredibly important issue, which the Department is considering, and we will certainly respond to my hon. Friend in due course with further detail.
Dr Danny Chambers (Winchester) (LD)
While we are in the middle of this outbreak, a lot of vets and farmers have made a couple of technical suggestions that could help us to deal with it. Obviously, we want to roll out the vaccinations as soon as possible and test as quickly as possible. First, under the specified animal pathogens order, bluetongue is classified in such a way that very few labs can continue testing at the moment. Not only is that slowing down the diagnosis of bluetongue, but we cannot test for other causes of abortion that farmers regularly need to test for. Secondly, for those practices and wholesalers that have managed to secure vaccines from abroad, a lot of their labels will be in Spanish, Polish or German. Should English-labelled product become available, can we ensure that they will not have to discard the previous perfectly good product, as that would be a huge financial loss?
Stephen Morgan
I thank the hon. Member for his question—he brings to the House real expertise on these issues, given his background in veterinary science. I pay tribute to all vets across the country who are supporting farmers at this difficult time. The hon. Member has been corresponding with the Department on various issues related to bluetongue for quite some time, and I am very grateful for the expertise he has been feeding into DEFRA policy. I will take away the specific points he has raised, look into those matters and get back to him.
Ms Julie Minns (Carlisle) (Lab)
Can I add to what my neighbour across the border, the hon. Member for Dumfries and Galloway (John Cooper), has said about the friction we already experience with cross-border trade? Over the summer, I visited the country’s largest sheep auction, which is in my constituency, and that trades right across the border. With the introduction of the zone in the south-west of Scotland, the restrictions on trade that still exist and what the auction house has to go through to be able to trade cattle and sheep from Scotland are now frankly somewhat meaningless. Can I please urge the Government to work at pace with the Scottish Government to get frictionless trade across the Scottish border?
Stephen Morgan
It was a real pleasure to visit Scotland over the recess to talk to Scottish farmers about some of the issues and challenges that they face. Indeed, some of those cross-border issues are live to the issues that my hon. Friend describes. I am happy to work with her on those issues, so that we can find solutions as appropriate.
Sir Ashley Fox (Bridgwater) (Con)
May I welcome the Minister to his position? Farmers in Somerset and Devon are gravely concerned by this outbreak, as they are among the worst affected areas in the country. I am afraid that the Government and his Department have been asleep. He talks about increasing testing capacity, yet this Government have cut the money available for testing by 74% over the past 12 months. There are now reports that it is taking weeks for vaccines to reach the farmers and vets who need them. Can the Minister outline what the Government are doing to ensure that those supplies reach those who so desperately need them?
Stephen Morgan
The hon. Member will have been listening carefully to what I said about increased capacity at the APHA and what we have been doing to work with industry to increase vaccine supply. I must stress the importance of vaccination and ensuring that farmers are kept informed of progress that the Government are making. The best way that they can do that is by looking at the regular updates on gov.uk, on social media and at the disease alert services. There are weekly email updates to livestock keepers, and I encourage him to ensure that his constituents are receiving those emails.
Andrew Pakes (Peterborough) (Lab/Co-op)
I welcome the Minister’s actions over the summer. First, may I put on record my empathy and thanks to farmers and vets around the country who are dealing with this desperate situation on top of an already horrible year with harvests, the weather and other challenges facing the farming community? I spoke to a farmer in my constituency in Cambridgeshire before this urgent question this morning, and we are looking across the border to Norfolk and other challenges there. There is a question around access to vaccines and the speed of testing, and I urge the Minister to speed that up, but to be honest, there is a bigger issue here. It is not a question of the immediate response, although that is important. For far too long, DEFRA has been unprepared for the resilience we need to face biosecurity threats in this country. We have had a decade of cuts. Frankly, it is not about what has happened this year, but about what we inherited and how DEFRA’s budgets have been prioritised by lots of previous Governments. Can he reassure me that as we face a changing climate, which makes these situations more likely, the machinery of government in DEFRA will be up to the job in preparing for these challenges, so that farmers are supported in years to come when we face these risks?
Stephen Morgan
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for his efforts and enthusiasm during his time as a DEFRA PPS. It is one of the best jobs in government. He makes a number of valid points from his expertise working closely in the Department. I will certainly take away the messages I have heard from him today. My message to farmers in his community is simple: remain vigilant, monitor your animals closely and take up the vaccine. I will certainly take away the concerns that he has raised to make sure that the Government are doing everything we possibly can.
Helen Morgan (North Shropshire) (LD)
Livestock farmers in North Shropshire, as everywhere else across the country, have had a torrid year. Drought has impacted their ability to feed their livestock, dairy farmers are selling milk at far less than the cost of production, and now they have the added concern of bluetongue bringing a horrendous end to a horrendous year. They have been caught unawares, and the Department has clearly been unprepared for something that could have easily been predicted. What support is the Minister putting in place for those farmers now? More importantly, what steps will be taken for this time next year, so that we do not find ourselves again trying to get on top of an epidemic that could have been prevented?
Stephen Morgan
As I mentioned, DEFRA has long-standing arrangements in place to support outbreaks. There are always lessons that we can learn from outbreaks, but we are working closely with industry, farmers, the NFU and others. We recognise the impact that bluetongue is having on farmers after a very difficult summer, and we are looking at everything we can do to support them with the outbreak going forward.
Johanna Baxter (Paisley and Renfrewshire South) (Lab)
I welcome the Minister to his place, and I am pleased to hear him promote vaccine uptake. Can he say a little more about the discussions he is having with the Scottish Government to ensure that farmers and livestock keepers in Scotland are getting the vaccines they need? Given the pressure on the veterinary sector, can he assure the House that the reform of the Veterinary Surgeons Act 1966 is getting the attention that it deserves? That will support not only our veterinary surgeons and all those who work in the sector, but consumers.
Stephen Morgan
My hon. Friend will know that my colleague in the other place, Baroness Hayman, leads on a number of the areas that she describes, but I will certainly take those messages back to her. As I mentioned earlier, I am very keen to work with the devolved nations on the issues that we face in the farming community, and I look forward to working with my hon. Friend on any issues and concerns that she has going forward.
David Reed (Exmouth and Exeter East) (Con)
Livestock farmers in Devon are facing this bluetongue outbreak at an already difficult time. They are meeting unexpected vaccination and fallen stock costs following a summer of drought, while changes to agricultural property relief and business property relief are adding to concerns about farm finances and succession. Does the Minister recognise that the financial impact of bluetongue cannot be considered in isolation, and what assessment has he made of the cumulative pressures on farm cash flow this year?
Stephen Morgan
As I mentioned earlier, it was good to be in the south-west to talk to farmers directly about their asks of Government. We have put in place a number of actions following their asks, and we will continue to work closely with the NFU and others to understand what more they might need. I absolutely recognise the pressures that livestock keepers are under, including financial pressures and indeed wellbeing pressures. There is support available for the sector, but I will certainly take the hon. Gentleman’s views and concerns back to the Department.
Seamus Logan (Aberdeenshire North and Moray East) (SNP)
Perhaps in contrast to some other Members, I want to commend the Minister for the interest that he has shown in the issues affecting Scottish farmers, not least in my constituency and the north-east in general. I also want to commend the excellent collaborative work in which he is engaging with the Scottish Government. I was encouraged to hear him say in response to various Members from across the House that he is looking at potential additional financial support, because there will be extra costs for farmers next year. I had the pleasure of an excellent “coolcation” in Kinlochbervie in the highlands, and I can assure the Minister that it was a bumper season for midges this year—next year will be even more so. If he is looking at additional financial support, will he please consider the Barnett consequentials for Scotland?
Stephen Morgan
It was a real pleasure to visit the hon. Gentleman’s constituency during recess, and I thank him for that opportunity. I will take away the issues that he describes. Midges do not respect boundaries, so it is really important that we work across boundaries on these issues and make sure that, where possible, we can have a co-ordinated approach.
Rebecca Smith (South West Devon) (Con)
As my hon. Friend the Member for Exmouth and Exeter East (David Reed) has already alluded to, Devon has a huge issue with bluetongue cases. In fact, of the 795 cases, 334—by far the highest number across the country—are in Devon, and one of those is new this week. I am sure that the Minister will remember that in a previous Westminster Hall debate on financing farming, I invited him to visit Dartmoor. That was ostensibly about livestock numbers, hill ponies and the future of farming on Dartmoor, but given this bluetongue outbreak, the invitation seems even more important now, because Dartmoor is a key farming part of Devon. I have invited the Minister three times and not yet had a response, so I would like to extend my invitation again. My farmers in South West Devon, including those in Dartmoor, would very much welcome a visit, and I would be grateful if he could respond to the letters that I have sent him over the last few months.
Stephen Morgan
The hon. Member knows from my face-to-face conversations with her that I am very keen to visit Dartmoor, and I am sure we can make that possible as soon as the diary allows.
Edward Morello (West Dorset) (LD)
Last week I was at the Melplash agricultural show, and I extend an invitation to the Minister to join me at next year’s show. Farmers there raised all the issues that have been mentioned already—testing time, vaccination availability and disposal costs—but one thing that they also raised is frustration with the fact that the Government map of bluetongue is woefully out of date, possibly by as much as a three-month lag. We know that bluetongue is in Dorset. The map shows one confirmed case, but one farmer told me that they know of at least five in the immediate area. The map does not show suspected cases, and it does not show where testing is being undertaken. The problem is that that is causing other farmers to delay doing anything, because they think it is not in their area yet. Will the Minister please do something to speed up the updating of the map, and ensure that it shows suspected cases and where testing is under way?
Stephen Morgan
I mentioned at the outset the importance of communication with the livestock sector, and that has included webinars, engagement events, disease alerts and information on gov.uk. I will take away the hon. Member’s specific point about the map. I thank him for flagging it with me today so that we can look into those issues.
David Mundell (Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale) (Con)
May I once again restate the cross-border issue? Longtown in the constituency of the hon. Member for Carlisle (Ms Minns) is one of the most important markets for livestock in the south of Scotland. Can the Minister confirm specifically that he is addressing the cross-border issues that NFU Scotland has raised, including the requirement relating to vaccination, testing and the return of animals to Scotland; the compatibility and recognition of vaccination records across the border; and the arrangements for animals that cannot meet vaccination requirements within the prescribed timescales?
Stephen Morgan
I met NFU Scotland on my visit to Aberdeenshire in August. I will write to the right hon. Member on the specific actions he describes and will ensure that he receives a robust response.
Ben Maguire (North Cornwall) (LD)
My North Cornwall farmers have had the summer from hell. Bluetongue virus has decimated their herds, and that is on top of a crushing drought. One farmer has told me that he has lost 40 of his sheep to bluetongue, with no vaccine available when he needed it most. Seeing their animals suffer is hard enough without the huge associated costs of disposing of fallen livestock, compounded by the financial loss of the animals themselves. Will the Minister back my call in my letter to him back on 3 August, and supported by the NFU, for urgent financial assistance for farmers facing these extraordinary disposal costs?
Stephen Morgan
As I have mentioned, DEFRA is considering a whole range of options to support the farming community, including supporting vaccination availability and expanding testing capacity. We will continue to evaluate measures including the possibility of financial support. We do recognise that this is an incredibly challenging time for those in the livestock community, and we will do what we can to support them.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Minister for his positive answers, which I think we should be encouraged by. Although Northern Ireland thankfully has no reported cases of bluetongue, the Ulster Farmers’ Union—I declare an interest as a member—has issued an urgent warning that vaccine supplies are under severe pressure in GB, with some major manufacturers completely out of stock. The Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs in Northern Ireland has rightly moved to a general licence to allow our farmers to vaccinate, but they cannot protect their herds if they cannot access the physical vaccine vials. Will the Minister assure this House that the Government are working directly with pharmaceutical manufacturers to guarantee security of supply, and will he commit to working closely with the Northern Ireland Assembly to ensure that our family farms are not left at the back of the queue for those vital BTV-3 vaccine supplies, as the midges’ active season continues and gets even worse.
Business of the House
(1 day, 7 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Speaker
The reshuffles have left in place the old guard—the old team—so let us start off with the shadow Leader of the House, Jesse Norman.
Jesse Norman (Hereford and South Herefordshire) (Con)
Will the Leader of the House give the House the forthcoming business?
The Leader of the House of Commons (Sir Alan Campbell)
The business for the week commencing 7 September will include:
Monday 7 September—Remaining stages of the Health Bill (day one).
Tuesday 8 September—Conclusion of remaining stages of the Health Bill.
Wednesday 9 September—Second Reading of the Civil Aviation (Consumer Protection and Regulatory Reform) Bill [Lords].
Thursday 10 September—Second Reading of the Social Housing Bill [Lords].
Friday 11 September—Private Members’ Bills.
The provisional business for the week commencing 14 September will include:
Monday 14 September—All stages of the Sovereign Grant Bill, followed by a general debate, subject to be confirmed.
Tuesday 15 September—General debate on the potential merits of a full ban on fracking, followed by general debate on World Sepsis Awareness Month. The subjects for these debates were determined by the Backbench Business Committee.
The House will rise for the conference recess at the conclusion of business on Tuesday 15 September and return on Monday 12 October.
Jesse Norman
The past few weeks have brought news of the deaths of Dolly Parton, Tim Curry and Wendell Berry. I am sure that many colleagues will share my sense of shock and sadness at the loss of those extraordinary figures, but also give great thanks for their lives.
Truly, we live in a world of change. Rather unexpectedly, we have a new Government, a new Prime Minister and a reshuffle on the Treasury Bench and among the Opposition. Amid all that risk and uncertainty, I am delighted to say that there has been one beacon of stability, one oasis of calm and one single unmoving axel at the still centre of our politics: I refer, of course, to the Leader of the House and myself. Each of us has emerged phoenix-like, blinking but resolute from the ashes of political reconstruction. I rather fear that, given our longevity and at least the level of banter on the Government side of the Dispatch Box, we will be seen over time as the Morecambe and Wise, or perhaps the two Ronnies, of British politics. I will not invite the House to say which of us is which, but I will simply say to you, Mr Speaker, and to all Members returning from recess, it is hello from me and it is hello from him.
Now to more serious matters. I invite the Leader of the House to clarify where the Government stand on defence spending, given the different briefings and public challenges that the Government and the Prime Minister have received over the past two weeks.
I also have two specific questions, the first of which is about restoration and renewal. The Government have had since February to table a motion on this topic. In view of the new Prime Minister’s spending priorities, it now seems highly unlikely that the ruinously expensive current plans will be put to the House before the end of this year. Seven months have already passed with no action. Will the Government now recognise the delay and use it to give the R and R team time to develop a sane and far less costly alternative?
My second question is about an issue at the very heart of the new Government: the status and functions of No. 10 North. As the House knows well, in our system of Government, a Prime Minister may have political power but No. 10 is not a spending Department and it does not possess independent fiscal authority, yet the new Prime Minister has insisted again and again that No. 10 North will not just be a paper exercise. You see the difficulty, Mr Speaker.
Will No. 10 North have real spending powers of its own? If the answer is yes, then this will be a new kind of cross-departmental Ministry—perhaps a territorial Ministry, like a regional Government but with no defined scope or mandate. We will need to see the legal instruments delegating Treasury authority and functions to it. After all, in this scenario the Chancellor of the Exchequer will not be fully in charge of the public finances. We will have to have new forms of accountability to this House, with a No. 10 North Select Committee and Question Time, so that Members can press the First Secretary of State, or perhaps the Prime Minister, as the ultimately responsible Minister, should the spending decisions that No. 10 North takes turn out as they plan or, indeed, as they do not plan.
However, if the answer is no, and No. 10 North will not have spending power of its own, then ultimately the Treasury and the Chancellor will continue to sign off on its public spending and on any taxing matters. Decentralisation is really important, but No. 10 North will not be a means of decentralisation in this scenario; it will be just another layer of Government. It does not feel like the Government have thought this issue through at all, so I would be grateful for answers to these questions, both now from the Leader of the House and in writing from the First Secretary of State.
Sir Alan Campbell
Let me begin by saying that I am sure the thoughts of the whole House are with the people of Nepal and all those affected by the recent devastating flash floods, including the loved ones of 36 missing British nationals. As the Prime Minister said to the House on Tuesday, we will do everything we can to support British nationals impacted in the region and we are working closely with the Nepalese authorities.
This summer has seen a significant number of wildfires that have affected many people. I pay tribute to the emergency services who have been on the frontline of tackling the blazes. I also pay tribute to and thank the farmers who have been brave in their work to protect their livelihoods and their whole communities. I put on record our thanks to them.
I also pay tribute to the two police officers who lost their lives in Cleveland, PC Blades and PC Clough. They devoted their lives to the noblest form of public service: protecting their fellow citizens. Policing is not just a profession, but a calling answered only by those who are willing to place themselves in harm’s way to protect us all. I think also of their colleagues in uniform, not just in Cleveland but across policing, who have lost friends, colleagues and fellow members of the policing family.
As the shadow Leader of the House said, we recently lost a great number of great people from across the world, not least in sport and entertainment, including Billy Boston, one of the greatest and most popular rugby league players of all time—I know that you were a great admirer, Mr Speaker—and Keven Keegan, a football legend who played for Liverpool, Newcastle and England, and who went on to manage the national side. Along with the shadow Leader of the House, I also pay tribute to Dolly Parton. Beyond her legacy as the queen of country music, she will also be remembered through the work of her Imagination Library, which has provided 7 million books to children in the UK, and helped children across the world discover a love of reading.
Earlier this week, the House heard from the new Prime Minister. His Administration will oversee the rewiring of the British state—I will get on to the specifics that the right hon. Gentleman raised in a moment—the rebuilding of the resilience of our communities, and the reindustrialisation of our regions. Later this year, our 10-year plan for Britain will set out plans for stronger public control over those essentials, making them work for people and places once again.
I am pleased—as you are, Mr Speaker—that the shadow Leader of the House survived the reshuffle, and I welcome him back to his place. He was generous in his offer to run my campaign to continue in my role, which was a successful campaign on his part. I was ready to reciprocate, but that proved unnecessary. I am not sure that I am pleased with the way he described us, but I am genuinely pleased that he has remained in post. We do have our political differences, which is an obvious thing to say, but we share a deep respect for this place, and I look forward to working with him going forward. I am not sure about his suggestion that we are either Morecambe and Wise or the Two Ronnies—I think he flatters himself about his sense of humour with that—but we shall see.
There is no confusion, as the shadow Leader of the House suggests, about defence spending. The Prime Minister set out clearly what our position is, and we will have a Budget in the not-too-distant future that will set out what those proposals are. The Prime Minister faced this House on Tuesday for three hours and 20 minutes and then came back to do Prime Minister’s questions yesterday, so there was no shortage of an opportunity for the Opposition to find out exactly what this Government are going to do.
On R and R, the shadow Leader of the House knows, as we have talked about it before, that a set of proposals has been put forward. We have thought deeply about the best time to bring them to the House—he should not assume that he will have to wait that much longer for this House to be given the opportunity to make a decision. I agree with the right hon. Gentleman on one thing, which is that the decision has been delayed for too long. As a result, there are costs to that delay, which we are paying whether the House decides to do something about it for the long term or not. I do not agree that the answer is another delay while we go back and look at it again. We have been around that track so many times, which explains why we have got to this place.
On that subject, it is odd when a member of the shadow Cabinet leaves to run for office in London—to begin his support for London—yet criticises the Government, when the Opposition are actually whipped against the restoration of this place, which is the iconic building in London. It is part of a UNESCO world heritage site. This is work that is long overdue, and it will create jobs and opportunities not only in London but throughout the regions of our country. The Opposition cannot have it both ways.
As the Prime Minister has said, it is important that we pursue and indeed go further on the devolution agenda, and setting up No. 10 North will be the biggest transfer of power and decision making out of Whitehall in a generation. I can assure Members that the Chancellor of the Exchequer will be in charge of the nation’s finances, and he will set out his proposals; having said that, it is important that we get decisions made closer to where those affected will feel the effects.
I do have some agreement with the shadow Leader of the House on his point about scrutiny by this House. There is an issue, for instance, around how mayors are scrutinised. As power and decision making are transferred away, it raises the issue of how this House will continue to be able to provide that scrutiny. I will take that issue away and think about it more.
Valerie Vaz (Walsall and Bloxwich) (Lab)
May I ask the Leader of the House if we can have a debate in Government time on the best use of public money? Some £50 million has been allocated for a free school—against Government policy and against the evidence. Some £38 million has been drawn down by Oak academy trust, which was set up under covid, so it is not clear why it is needed now, and which distorts the publishing market. There is also the contentious transaction involving Walsall College and the closure of Walsall Leather Museum—none of this benefits my constituents, who do not want any of this. Could we have a debate on the best use of public money?
Sir Alan Campbell
My right hon. Friend is a great champion of her local community. We have previously talked about the issue of schools in her area. This Government are committed to empowering local leaders to take action and spend money where communities require it, and they are the best judge of how that money should be spent. I will ensure that the relevant Minister has heard her contribution. She may wish to seek a Westminster Hall debate to raise this issue, which I know has been going on for quite some time; alternatively, if she would like to meet a Minister, I will help her to arrange that.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
Bobby Dean (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)
I also welcome the Leader of the House back to his place. I believe this makes him the longest continuously serving member of the Labour Front Bench at 20 years, which is a remarkable achievement. I will not go into what I was doing 20 years ago—I am sure he has no interest in what I studied for my GCSEs.
One of the stories that caught my eye over the summer was the sale of British success story easyJet to a US private equity-backed investor. The sale will create worry about jobs, fares and routes across Europe, as well as worry for the British economy, as we are now going to see profits move overseas. Acquisitions in and of themselves are not a bad thing—sometimes they are a sign of positivity for British business—but what is worrying is the trend. We are starting to see British businesses bought out by overseas investors again and again, and we are seeing people leave the London stock exchange at an alarming rate. This is starting to become a problem for the resilience of the UK economy. Tate & Lyle, the famous sugar manufacturer, was also sold to an overseas investor this summer, and three London-listed companies decided to leave the London stock exchange just this week.
If the Government share my concern about this, they have many levers available to them to address the issue; they could look at stock market regulation, competition regulation and taxation. I believe that the time has come for us to have a proper debate in this House about this matter so that we can properly look into the details of those levers, see which are the correct ones to use and get a ministerial response on this matter. Will the Leader of the House organise for a debate about the future of UK businesses and the alarming trend of them being sold to overseas investors?
Sir Alan Campbell
The Government do not comment on individual firms’ commercial decisions, but I do understand that some of the decisions the hon. Gentleman mentions will cause concern to employees and, in the case of easyJet, to travellers too. We are working to reform UK capital markets to make it easier for companies to raise capital, go public and grow. We do have some of the most innovative businesses in the world, and the most talented leaders and entrepreneurs of any nation, and we continue to work closely with business groups and industry leaders to understand the pressures facing industry and to develop measures to support it, including the measures the hon. Gentleman mentioned. There will be an opportunity to debate these matters up to and around the Budget, but the Liberal Democrats can also ask for one of their Opposition days, on which they might wish to choose this as a topic; it is entirely up to them.
Jon Trickett (Normanton and Hemsworth) (Lab)
I welcome my right hon. Friend to his place once again. Comments by a recently elected Reform councillor in my area have caused great offence, as he attacked, in quite a horrible way, women who have abortions. It not acceptable that people should use their platforms in that way. Of course, there are different points of view about abortion, but may I encourage the Leader of the House to reaffirm the consensus in our country that it is perfectly legal, reasonable and responsible for women to pursue that course of action? Does he think there may be an opportunity in the future where we could continue to reaffirm the views of all of us? Finally, will he say that it is not appropriate for people to use an elected position to make others feel deeply uncomfortable about personal choices—often painful ones—that they have made?
Sir Alan Campbell
I am happy to reaffirm the Government’s view on these matters. In terms of comments by a particular councillor, these people’s views—not least Reform councillors’—often become clearer, more noticeable and even more abhorrent once they are elected and we see their true nature. They do not represent the view of right-minded people. Councillors are there to represent the whole community, not just to represent those who may share their abhorrent views.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I call the Chair of the Backbench Business Committee.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
I thank the Leader of the House for announcing the Backbench Business debates for Tuesday 15 September. The business in Westminster Hall that the Backbench Business Committee has agreed will include: on Tuesday 8 September, a debate on the safety of the Jewish community; on Thursday 10 September, debates on reform of the vascular sector and on the contribution of fathers and positive male role models to families and society; and on Tuesday 15 September, a debate on building safety and remediation of residential buildings. When we come back following the conference recess—we are planning ahead—on Tuesday 13 October there will be a debate on the future of the UK coach industry, and on Thursday 15 October there will be debates on support for unpaid carers and on progress towards a smoke-free UK.
I gently ask the Leader of the House to consider what time will be made available in the Chamber for the Backbench Business Committee during the week that we come back. Hopefully, he will be able to announce that next week. That week is Baby Loss Awareness Week. He will recall that the last debate we had on that had protected time, but it was held on a Monday when we came back and started very late in the day. Individuals bravely gave their stories late into the night, which I think we all agree was unacceptable. We would like to programme that debate for the Thursday we come back, if that is possible; obviously, we understand the constraints on the Government.
May I also ask the Leader of the House to use his good offices? The Backbench Business Committee consists of eight members, but we are holding a Labour vacancy following the promotion of the hon. Member for Harlow (Chris Vince), who has not been replaced. I am also aware that two of our members may be taking other parliamentary duties. Indeed, our Liberal Democrat member, the hon. Member for Newbury (Mr Dillon), has not been able to attend because of accidental damage to his leg, which has caused him great difficulty. We have a quorum of four, so that gives me real concern about our ability to meet and make decisions. May I gently ask that the appropriate things are done?
Young people go back to school in the not-too-distant future. It is welcome that those on low incomes will receive free school meals, so during term time there is not an issue, but there is a problem regarding what happens during the school holidays, on which the leader of Harrow council has written to me and to the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions. Previously, under arrangements for Harrow council and, I suspect, many other local authorities across the country, the provision of those free school meals has continued. However, we understand that the rules and regulations around this have changed under the crisis and resilience fund; allegedly, local authorities will now have to decide individually who gets support and who does not. To me and probably most Members of the House, that does not seem acceptable. Provision should be made on a basis such that children who potentially could go hungry over Christmas are not in that position. Could the Leader of the House arrange for a statement to be made on the Floor of the House next week setting out the position, to ensure that children of parents who are low paid are able to secure their necessary food?
Sir Alan Campbell
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his work and the work of his Committee; I will take away what he says about vacancies on that Committee and make sure that we fill them as quickly as possible, so that he can depend upon having at least a quorum at his meetings. I also thank him for updating the House on the future debate topics. He will know that I refer to that baby loss debate quite a lot, because I recall that situation very well. He will also know that I was extremely concerned about it and have tried since to do everything that we can to ensure that does not happen again, and indeed that other similar topics are given a proper time and a proper place for debate. I will take that point away and see whether we can make sure that happens.
On the issue that the hon. Gentleman raises about children in his patch, he will know that as they return to school, they return with help from this Government. Their parents were helped with the cost of uniforms, free school meals have been extended and there has been help for travel costs. The Government are always looking to help families with cost of living issues. I will take the hon. Gentleman’s question away, because I have heard those concerns from my constituency as well: what happens during term time is great, but what happens for some families outside term time? I will refer the matter to colleagues to see what further help we can provide.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Let us speed up business questions a little bit, so everybody can get in.
Josh Newbury (Cannock Chase) (Lab)
The BMJ has reported that £406 million allocated by universities to NHS trusts in England between 2020 and 2023 for medical student training remains unaccounted for, and some trusts admit that they do not know how that money was spent at all. That is a huge failure on the part of the Conservative party, which also presided over sluggish growth in medical school places and a service-wide workforce crisis. Given the seriousness of those findings, will the Leader of the House grant a debate on transparency and accountability in NHS training, so that we can be confident that all the money set aside to train the world-leading doctors of tomorrow will be spent properly?
Sir Alan Campbell
The Government are fixing the problem; we introduced the Medical Training (Prioritisation) Act 2026, and it has had an impact. Competition ratios have halved, prioritised doctors have filled 98% of roles and in some specialities, such as general practice, all posts have been filled by prioritised doctors. However, my hon. Friend is right to continue to raise and campaign on these matters, and I urge him to apply for a Westminster Hall debate so that he can hear directly from Ministers.
David Mundell (Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale) (Con)
I welcome the Leader of the House back to his place. I very much supported his traditionalism when I saw that he did not engage in any vulgar hugging of the Prime Minister on his appointment.
Can we have a debate in Government time on the operation of the Driver and Vehicle Standards Agency? My constituent Fiona Reid advises me that her daughter has sought a practical driving test in Dumfries and Galloway and has not been able to secure one before the end of January. She has also tried to get an appointment in Carlisle and has not been able to do so. For young people in rural areas like mine, driving is not a luxury—it is an important part of being able to get a job and of social interaction. Could we have that debate and get an improvement in that service?
Sir Alan Campbell
As ever, the right hon. Gentleman raises an important issue for his rural constituents. We have taken measures to improve the situation, stamping out the resale of tests, limiting changes to bookings and locations to stop bots, and doubling the number of permanent examiner trainers, but there is still, in some areas, a great deal of work to be done. I will make sure that the Transport Secretary hears his specific concerns and urge the Minister to write to him.
Clive Efford (Eltham and Chislehurst) (Lab)
I welcome my right hon. Friend back to his post, but I must say to him that not all the rewiring of the new Government is welcome. I understand that the Cabinet Office intends to move responsibility for the Infected Blood Compensation Authority to a Minister in the Lords. We all have constituents who are raising serious concerns about that process, and we want to be able to come to this House and hold to account the Minister responsible for that agency. I urge my right hon. Friend to take the matter up with the Cabinet Office—and, if the Government do intend to make that change, can we have a statement?
Sir Alan Campbell
I will try to reassure my hon. Friend: even though ministerial responsibility might change, there will still be departmental and ministerial responsibility for such really important matters in this place. We will continue to have an opportunity to question, and to request statements from, Ministers who are accountable to this House.
Tessa Munt (Wells and Mendip Hills) (LD)
Like others, one of my constituents inherited responsibility for a retirement property on the death of the resident. It has been on the market since 2022, incurring annual costs of about £14,000. It has a falling sale value, and there is ground rent, service charges, council tax and an exit fee. The landlord forbids subletting, even though it is renting out its own properties on the same site, and there is an over-55 residency restriction, so neither the beneficiaries nor their adult children, who are struggling to get on to the property ladder, can live in the property. Would the Leader of the House ask his ministerial colleagues to look at the protections for families trapped by retirement housing leases, including the cost elements I referred to—the huge service charges on empty properties and empty-home council tax—and age restrictions on occupancy?
Sir Alan Campbell
I will draw to the attention of the relevant Minister the points that the hon. Lady makes, and make sure that they get back to her on those important matters.
Ms Julie Minns (Carlisle) (Lab)
Inspired by the experience of club member Liam Burns, Carlisle golf club members have raised a whopping £54,000 for Prostate Cancer UK in their Big Golf Race. Liam himself is atop of the individual leaderboard, and the club has raised £20,000 more than the second-placed club. Will the Leader of the House please join me in congratulating Liam Burns and all the members of Carlisle golf club on a truly amazing round?
Sir Alan Campbell
I will indeed join my hon. Friend in congratulating Liam Burns and everyone associated with the Big Golf Race, and thank them for raising so much money for such a worthy cause.
John Glen (Salisbury) (Con)
It is 55 days till the Budget. Given the market’s reaction to the Prime Minister’s statement on Tuesday, and given that our gilt rates are higher than those of our peers in the G7, could we have a debate on the implications of higher taxes for growth? Given that the Prime Minister says that he will stick to the previous Prime Minister’s borrowing rules, I think the country is very concerned that we are at grave risk of higher taxes, which will compound the problem that he is trying to fix.
Sir Alan Campbell
The right hon. Gentleman will have to wait for the Budget for some of the reassurances that he seeks, but I would gently point out to him—and he should know this, given the jobs he did in government—that there are international pressures, such as concerns about inflation, and competition around the world for money to invest in things like artificial intelligence. The difference between this Government and others in comparable situations is that the rates he talks about are the direct result of the Liz Truss Budget. Businesses and households are still living with that, and with higher mortgage rates than are necessary.
Nick Smith (Blaenau Gwent and Rhymney) (Lab)
This summer, wildfires raged across south Wales and other parts of the UK. On one day alone, our emergency services received 1,000 telephone calls. Our South Wales fire and rescue service worked tirelessly alongside firefighters from across the UK. The Royal Logistics Corps, councils, Welsh Water staff, farmers and residents all gave a helping hand in Blaenau Gwent and Rhymney. Ahead of the national wildfire summit, will the Government please provide a statement on support for areas such as the south Wales valleys, and on the steps being taken to improve preparedness and reduce the risk of fires in the future?
Sir Alan Campbell
I join my hon. Friend in thanking everyone involved in tackling the fires—the emergency services, the farmers and local residents. The Government are spending around £100 million to strengthen the country’s response to wildfires and extreme weather, and, as he points out, we will chair the wildfire summit in the autumn to consider how national response capabilities can be strengthened across the UK. I am sure that Ministers will continue to update the House on any further developments.
Bradley Thomas (Bromsgrove) (Con)
Far too many communities across the country are blighted by Travellers and Gypsies who seek to circumvent the planning system and build without first seeking permission. I have two instances of that in my patch, in Dodford and Hagley. Does the Leader of the House agree that there should not be a two-tier approach in the planning system, and will he allow for a debate in Government time on strengthening the planning system, so that councils get the powers that they need to resolve this issue? Will he also stress to his colleague the Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government that she should not have removed local councils’ powers to prevent such development on the grounds of environmental damage?
Sir Alan Campbell
Residents would not expect a two-tier system, as the hon. Gentleman is right to point out. There is a statement following business questions on housing. I do not know whether the point that he raises will be in scope of that, but he may want to raise it directly with the Minister.
Callum Anderson (Buckingham and Bletchley) (Lab)
Over the summer recess, I had the pleasure of visiting the Florence Nightingale Hospice Charity shop in Winslow, which celebrated 25 years in the town. In that time, hard-working volunteers and local people have helped raise over £1.5 million for the hospice. Will the Leader of the House join me in thanking and congratulating local people on this achievement, and might he consider making Government time for a general debate on how we can deliver a secure future for our hospice sector, especially as hospices provide such compassionate care at the most difficult times?
Sir Alan Campbell
I certainly join my hon. Friend in congratulating the Florence Nightingale Hospice Charity shop on its 25th anniversary, and I thank all the volunteers for their dedicated service. We are committed to supporting the hospice sector and have provided £125 million of capital funding as a boost to it. I would encourage my hon. Friend to apply for a Westminster Hall debate on the subject, because there is agreement across the House on the importance of hospices and the need to consider what more can be done to support them.
Dr Danny Chambers (Winchester) (LD)
I spent the summer visiting all the villages in the rural areas outside Winchester, and the common theme that came up was speed limits, and the speed at which traffic goes through small villages; people sometimes go through at 60 mph. All these villages, including Littleton, Crawley, Hambledon and Droxford, want to be able to decide whether to have a 30 mile per hour speed limit in their village, yet Hampshire county council will not even consider that. Those villages that have self-funded traffic-curbing measures do not have permission to implement them. Will the Minister consider granting a debate on how, through the local government and devolution reforms, we can empower local communities to set the speed limit in their village?
Sir Alan Campbell
We are very much in favour of local communities having more power over the decisions that affect them most. The Government did introduce a road safety strategy last year, but this comes down to local authorities. I hope that the hon. Gentleman’s local authority has heard what he has said today and responds positively to residents in the areas he mentioned. If it does not, he might want to apply for a Westminster Hall debate in which to raise the matter further and see what more the Government could do to help him.
Leigh Ingham (Stafford) (Lab)
I know that the Leader of the House agrees with me that pubs are an important part of British culture, especially in towns and rural villages. They often act as crucial community hubs. The Oxleathers pub in my constituency of Stafford, Eccleshall and the villages is the only pub from the west midlands to be shortlisted in the Pub Aid pub hero awards. I welcome the Government’s recent announcement of business rates cuts to pubs and hospitality venues, so would the Leader of the House agree to a debate on the importance of Government support for pubs, especially in rural towns and villages?
Sir Alan Campbell
My hon. Friend is a real champion for her area, and I pay tribute to her for that. I absolutely join her in congratulating the Oxleathers pub on being shortlisted for the Pub Aid community pub hero award. Pubs bring our local communities together. I encourage her to seek a Westminster Hall debate, because I know that pubs are of importance to Members across the House.
Douglas Lumsden (Aberdeen South) (Con)
During recess, I had the pleasure of visiting the Counselling House charity in my constituency, which is doing excellent work providing mental health counselling to young people and families, free at the point of use. That is against a backdrop of savage cuts from the SNP-run Aberdeen city council. Could we have a debate in Government time on the important issue of young people’s mental health, and how we can move it on to a more sustainable footing?
Sir Alan Campbell
The hon. Gentleman will know that this is a really important matter for the Government, and we are making progress in all sorts of ways, but I accept that there is further progress to be made. He may wish to apply for either a Backbench Business or Westminster Hall debate, though the Government do update the House when necessary on these matters. On services not being properly funded by the SNP Government, I repeat what I have said before: the SNP Government have had the best settlement ever, and it is just not appropriate for them to not fund services of such critical importance to his constituents.
Marsha De Cordova (Battersea) (Lab)
I have several constituents who are retired civil servants and are still waiting to receive their pension statements and their pensions. This is causing a lot of worry, distress and, in some cases, financial hardship. What is deeply concerning is that when this is raised with Capita, it is pretty laid-back about it; frankly, it shows little empathy and no urgency in trying to resolve the matter. Can I press the Leader of the House for a Government statement setting out what concrete steps the Government will take to address this—in my view, Capita should be relieved of these responsibilities—and, importantly, to ensure that my constituents can begin to receive their pensions? Many have given tens of years of service to this country; they deserve to be paid and treated with respect.
Sir Alan Campbell
My hon. Friend will know from the support across the House on these matters that the service levels following the move to Capita have been completely unacceptable. The Government’s priority has been to stabilise service and give former civil servants, who rightly need to be treated better, the service that they deserve. I understand the strong feeling about this. She might want to raise the matter again at Cabinet Office questions next week. The Government and the Department are not being shy in coming forward with statements to the House about what remains a very difficult issue.
Robbie Moore (Keighley and Ilkley) (Con)
In the Worth valley, we are on the cusp of getting our household waste and recycling centre reopened at Sugden End. The wait has caused huge concern, an increase in fly-tipping, and long waits at Royd Ings Avenue in Keighley. But we are yet to hear anything about another household waste and recycling centre that was also closed under Labour-run Bradford council in 2024, and we are still waiting for a solution in Ilkley. Could we have a debate about the importance of household waste and recycling, and taxpayers getting a decent service from their local authority?
Sir Alan Campbell
Recycling and fly-tipping are important matters for local residents, and the hon. Gentleman is right to raise concerns on behalf of his constituents. He might want to seek a Westminster Hall debate on the subject, so that he can hear from the relevant Minister about what the Government’s approach is. We are doing stuff on fly-tipping, but there is more to be done.
Adam Jogee (Newcastle-under-Lyme) (Lab)
Last weekend, people from across Newcastle-under-Lyme and further afield came together for the Newcastle-under-Lyme jazz festival 2026. My wife and I enjoyed several acts. It was a brilliant date night spread over three days for Mrs Jogee and me. Despite the liquid sunshine, it was especially good to see all that our town has to offer. Will the Leader of the House join me in paying tribute to Newcastle-under-Lyme business improvement district, all the businesses involved, the artists who performed, and all those local people who turned up, and will he come and see us next year? I will get the first round in at one of our brilliant pubs.
Sir Alan Campbell
I am happy to congratulate everybody involved in the Newcastle-under-Lyme jazz festival—the organisers, businesses and everyone else. It is a great boost for towns and cities when festivals such as this are held. I look forward to it being a success in the future, and I will think about my hon. Friend’s invite very carefully.
Ben Maguire (North Cornwall) (LD)
Since my election, I have been campaigning for a new GP surgery building in the fast-growing town of Bodmin, which is set to receive more than 3,000 new homes by 2030. The current building is already running at around 160% capacity, yet the clear and urgent need is not being met by our local integrated care board, which is dragging its heels on the extra costs that must be met to get shovels into the ground. As we know from discussions about restoration in this place, further delays mean that build costs go up. Will the Leader of the House assist me in securing an urgent meeting with the relevant Health Minister, so that we can help bridge this funding gap and finally deliver the new GP building?
Sir Alan Campbell
I understand the hon. Gentleman’s point about where necessary house building happens, and the Government are aware of the importance of getting infrastructure in place—we made a recent welcome announcement about more diagnostic centres for local areas. There is a statement after this one and the Housing Minister will be there, so the hon. Gentleman may wish to raise those matters directly with him.
Nick Thomas-Symonds (Torfaen) (Lab)
My constituent Danielle lost her husband Chris in a road traffic collision in 2024. She was left studying to become a nurse with three children to care for and found the bereavement support payment system to be wholly inadequate to give her the support that she needed. Will the Leader of the House ask the relevant Minister from the Department of Work and Pensions to write to me about this matter, and may we have a debate on it, please?
Sir Alan Campbell
Let me pay tribute to my right hon. Friend’s work and the diligent way in which he stands up for his constituents. He raises a concerning matter, and I will get the relevant Minister to write to him.
David Reed (Exmouth and Exeter East) (Con)
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. We all know the Prime Minister is a strong supporter of devolution and we understand that big changes are now under way in Devon. Before Devon embarks on one of the biggest changes to local government in a generation, local people deserve to know what the new mayor would do, what their mandate would be, how much it would all cost, and how they would work with the new unitary authority. When we have asked the Government those questions, we have received very little information. Will the Leader of the House please ask the Minister responsible to meet Devon MPs to discuss this in detail?
Sir Alan Campbell
I will indeed, because it is important that we recognise that not all of the country is covered by devolution in the way that the Prime Minister has set out. It is important that no area is left behind, and I will seek to arrange that meeting.
Samantha Dixon (Chester North and Neston) (Lab)
I am beyond pleased that Chester North and Neston will be hosting this year’s world town crier tournament at the end of this month. I am sure that with the talent, showmanship and sheer vocal power of this year’s contestants, who hail from 15 UK towns and eight nations, audiences will be able to hear their cries of “Oyez!” from our city’s Roman walls and beyond. Will the Leader of the House join me in raising his voice to wish all 25 contestants the best of luck?
Sir Alan Campbell
Let me pay tribute to my hon. Friend, who did a fantastic job as a Minister and is a great champion of her fine city. I join in with her excitement in welcoming the world town crier tournament. Her question is exceptionally timely given that one of the earliest surviving records of town criers in the UK is, in fact, part of the Bayeux tapestry, which was brought home yesterday to such fanfare. I wish all the contestants in her competition the very best of luck.
Madam Deputy Speaker
Is the Leader of the House not going to attempt to town cry now?
Aphra Brandreth (Chester South and Eddisbury) (Con)
I share a love of poetry with my dad, which is why I was delighted to host an event yesterday to spread the word about a free initiative that he is involved in, and I am grateful to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for dropping in. Poetry Together brings children and older people together to perform and share poetry. At a time when loneliness and social isolation affects people across generations, simple initiatives such as that can give people of different ages a reason to meet, talk and form connections that might otherwise never happen. With World Poetry Day just a few weeks away, may we have a debate on the role of intergenerational projects in tackling loneliness? May I also encourage the Leader of the House and Members across the House to get schools and older people’s groups across their constituencies involved in the initiative?
Sir Alan Campbell
It seems like a timely opportunity for the hon. Member to seek a debate on those matters, given what is coming up. I pay tribute to her and her father for the initiative and the work that they are doing. It is so important that we have ways of tackling inclusion and loneliness, and I wish them all the very best in that. Let me remind her very gently that the new Prime Minister has confessed to being a poetry addict as well.
Richard Burgon (Leeds East) (Lab)
Further to the earlier request from my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea (Marsha De Cordova), may I push the Government for a debate on the progress of their measures to tackle the ongoing failure of Capita to effectively administer civil service pensions? May I also urge the Government to publish the advice of Grant Thornton on a secondary recovery plan now that Capita’s own internal deadline for sorting it out has also passed? The matter has been raised by my constituents, by people across the country and by the Public and Commercial Services Union, and it would be great to see some progress.
Sir Alan Campbell
As I said to our hon. Friend before, the Government take this very seriously. Cabinet Office questions are next Thursday, so my hon. Friend might want to raise the matter there. I sense the feeling across the House. The Government have updated the House on developments, but let me go away and see if another update is required.
Vikki Slade (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (LD)
When the power fails, the electricity supplier provides generators; when the water fails, the supplier provides water; but when the data switches off, silence. My community of Bloxworth went without for over a week before Openreach even bothered to reach out. They could not access their GPs or important business and personal calls. Data is now critical infrastructure, like power and water, and in the event of conflict, we know that interference with data is more likely than boots on the ground. May we have a ministerial statement or a debate in the House on the resilience of our critical information infrastructure?
Sir Alan Campbell
I hope that Openreach has heard what the hon. Lady has said. I agree absolutely on the importance of data in our modern lives. The Government take the matter very seriously, as they do the matter of resilience, and they are doing some in-depth work on how we can improve the situation. At the appropriate time, I am sure they will want to bring forward any further proposals to the House.
Dr Peter Prinsley (Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket) (Lab)
I apologise, Madam Deputy Speaker. This morning I met Julie, the mother of Heather, whose tragic death was featured in Channel 4’s “Dirty Business”. She is an incredible campaigner. With all the debates and discussions about the terrible state of the water companies, does the Leader of the House agree with Julie and with me that public health must be this House’s top priority?
Sir Alan Campbell
Yes, I do. On clean water, I will not rehearse all the arguments about how we have got to this situation, which has been a national disgrace, but I reassure my hon. Friend that water is a top priority for both the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Secretary and the Prime Minister.
Sarah Bool (South Northamptonshire) (Con)
The transplant world cup is taking place between 13 and 18 September in Frankfurt. All the players have had a transplant, be that organ, stem cell or bone marrow. My constituent Philip Taylor is the goalkeeper coach for the England team. The team is hoping for a triple victory, because they have already won the transplant football Euros and the transplant football four nations. Will the Leader of the House wish the team luck in their endeavour and reiterate how important donations and transplants are to saving lives and to living a fruitful one thereafter?
Sir Alan Campbell
I congratulate the hon. Lady on her new role in the shadow Administration, and I reiterate how important transplants are. I hope that people listening to this have heard what the hon. Lady has said. I wish the England team all the very best and congratulate them on their success so far. I wish them luck in the upcoming games, and should they win the tournament, maybe there could some lessons for the England national team to learn from that.
Navendu Mishra (Stockport) (Lab)
Residents in my constituency, particularly in Portwood and Edgeley, are increasingly concerned about the overconcentration of houses in multiple occupation. Too many communities have been left feeling powerless as family homes are lost and local services come under strain, with increased traffic congestion and parking pressures. Local authorities need stronger planning and licensing powers, alongside adequate funding, to manage the concentration of HMOs and protect the character of residential neighbourhoods. Will the Leader of the House allow time for a debate on further powers and resources to help councils regulate HMOs effectively and mitigate their impact on local communities?
Sir Alan Campbell
As my hon. Friend points out, local authorities have planning powers to limit the proliferation of HMOs. He might want to raise the matter in a statement that is about to take place. Local authorities have powers, but I encourage them to use those powers. We keep regulations under review, but it is not always a case of more power being needed but rather of the powers that exist being used better by local authorities, including that of my hon. Friend. The matter concerns Members across the House, so it seems that a Westminster Hall debate would be an appropriate opportunity to discuss it further.
Sarah Dyke (Glastonbury and Somerton) (LD)
I was pleased to support Georgie Newbery from Common Farm Flowers in Charlton Musgrove, also representing Flowers from the Farm, to secure a dedicated standard industrial classification code for flower farming, which was launched at the Chelsea Flower Show earlier this year. It recognises the contribution of flower farms in creating jobs, driving rural growth and enhancing biodiversity, but full implementation will not happen until 2031. Can the Leader of the House help me secure a meeting with the relevant Minister to discuss how SIC codes are reviewed and how we can accelerate the roll-out for flower farming and other horticultural sectors?
Sir Alan Campbell
I agree with the hon. Lady about the importance of flower farmers and horticulture, not least because of the job opportunities, so I will help to arrange that meeting.
Jon Pearce (High Peak) (Lab)
This Saturday marks International Day of Charity. In High Peak, we are incredibly lucky to have so many charities and volunteers supporting our communities, from Connex Community Support in Buxton and the New Mills volunteer centre to Little Cherubs Community in Chapel-en-le-Frith. On Friday, I will be hosting an event to say thank you to all those amazing charities. Will the Leader of the House allow for a debate in Government time on valuing volunteering and charities and how we can better support them?
Sir Alan Campbell
I certainly join my hon. Friend in celebrating the important work of local charities. As I have often said on these occasions, charities and community organisations are the golden thread that runs through our communities. I encourage him to seek a Westminster Hall debate so that he, other Members and, indeed, Ministers can say thank you to the local volunteers and charities who do such important work.
Sir Ashley Fox (Bridgwater) (Con)
My residents feel badly let down by Royal Mail. Across the summer, many residents have not had a delivery for three or more weeks. Some constituents have been to the sorting office to collect time-sensitive post to be told that there are still sacks of mail waiting to be sorted and that there is nothing for them to collect. Can we have a debate in Government time on how this Government will hold Royal Mail to account for the licence it holds?
Sir Alan Campbell
We have been clear that Royal Mail’s service is unacceptable, as the hon. Gentleman points out. Constituents expect a well-run postal service, and the Business and Trade Committee has called in Royal Mail to talk about its performance. I hope, because I know that Royal Mail listens to these sessions, that it has heard what he said, and the Government stand ready in future to ensure that we get the service from Royal Mail that the hon. Gentleman seeks.
Mohammad Yasin (Bedford) (Lab)
Thousands of my constituents in Bedford and Kempston have signed petitions following the loss of the 7, 10, 53 and 53A bus routes and cuts to the 3, 4, 5 and 8. For many older and vulnerable residents, these services are lifelines, and many now feel isolated and abandoned. Will the Leader of the House make time for a debate on how Government can support councils and communities to use the powers and funding that this Government have provided them with to develop locally led solutions, such as a community interest model, to restore these vital services?
Sir Alan Campbell
There has been a £3 billion boost to bus services for millions of people across the country. The Government have capped bus fares at £2 from 2027, and the Buses Services Act 2025 will let local leaders take back control of those services. I hope that local leaders will take advantage of that because, as my hon. Friend knows, the Prime Minister is particularly interested in good bus services because he realises that interconnectivity is so important to people, particularly for getting to work.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
Each week I usually bring an individual religious persecution issue, but this week I wish to bring forward a collective request. Will the Leader of the House ask the Foreign Secretary to make a statement on the disturbing findings of the Pew Research Centre’s latest report on the worsening state of global freedom of religion or belief across the world, and what steps the Government of this United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland are taking to uphold the freedom of religion or belief as an intrinsic and non-negotiable human right in their foreign policy?
Sir Alan Campbell
It is good to see the hon. Gentleman back in his place and good to see him in these sessions, of which he is a consistent attendee, and I thank him for that. As ever, he raises a very serious issue. Last year, we launched our freedom of religion and belief strategy, focusing on our efforts to drive positive change. We continue to raise our concerns directly with countries where violations occur and work with international partners to defend this fundamental human right. I will ensure that the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office hears his concerns and will see if he can get the update he seeks.
Dr Allison Gardner (Stoke-on-Trent South) (Lab)
I have been supporting the excellent North Staffordshire Pensioners’ Convention in its campaign for an older persons’ commissioner who would champion later-life issues. This is also a recommendation by the Work and Pensions Committee in its report on “Pensioner Poverty” and in the report by the all-party parliamentary group for ageing and older people on older people’s rights. Would the Leader of the House make time in Government time for a debate on the need for an older persons’ commissioner in England?
Sir Alan Campbell
Given Mr Speaker’s introduction at the beginning of this session, I think that I may well be a candidate, either to be a commissioner for older persons or, indeed, the beneficiary of having such a commissioner. It is an interesting idea. There is an important campaign for a such a commissioner in England, and I encourage my hon. Friend to seek a Westminster Hall debate to further develop her arguments and hear directly from Ministers.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
Can we have a statement on the closure of post offices? When York’s Crown post office was closed after 138 years and moved into WH Smith, we were given assurances that it was a long-term solution. Now we have Modella Capital private equity buying out WH Smith, we have seen the closure of our WH Smith branch on the high street and of 150 branches across the country, meaning that we will lose our post office once again. Can we have a statement to ensure that we secure the jobs, but also the services for my residents and businesses? [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear!”]
Sir Alan Campbell
My hon. Friend will have heard from the murmurs behind me that that is not just a matter for her constituency; it is a matter for others, too. It is an important point, and she is right to raise it. The Government’s priority is to maintain the current size of the Post Office network and ensure that communities continue to have access to post office services. I will ensure that the relevant Minister hears what she has said and writes to her with an update on what further steps can be taken.
Chris Bloore (Redditch) (Lab)
With Redditch suffering the worst mental health illness rates in Worcestershire, and with child referrals doubling over the last five years, I am sure that the Leader of the House will join me in welcoming the Government’s intention to spend £343 million on opening 100 community walk-in mental health centres and 59 emergency mental health centres in our hospitals. Would the Leader of the House add his weight to my campaign to ensure that our local integrated care board ensures that the money goes where it is needed most, which means a centre in Redditch?
Sir Alan Campbell
I thank my hon. Friend for raising such an important matter. The Government have recruited almost 8,700 mental health workers and are dedicated to ensuring that communities can access mental health support when they need it. On the application for his constituency, all I can say is that I will raise the points he has raised today and highlight his campaign with the relevant Health Minister.
Warinder Juss (Wolverhampton West) (Lab)
I had the opportunity to visit the Women and Families Resource Centre in my constituency, which last year delivered well over 6,000 essential items to support over 1,000 vulnerable children and women facing poverty, trauma and social isolation. Will the Leader of the House please join me in commending the centre for the vital support it provides to disadvantaged and deprived communities in Wolverhampton? Can he also reassure the charities in my constituency that this Government will continue to invest in early intervention and preventive grassroots support services, so families can have the stability they need to build secure, independent futures?
Sir Alan Campbell
I certainly join my hon. Friend in commending the outstanding work of the Women and Families Resource Centre in Wolverhampton West, delivering essential items to support more than 1,000 vulnerable women and children. It is a testament to the extraordinary dedication of its staff and volunteers. He is entirely right about the critical importance of early intervention and preventive support, and I will be happy to raise these matters with Ministers on his behalf to remind them—though they do not need any reminding—of the importance of this issue.
Mr Jonathan Brash (Hartlepool) (Lab)
At the start of the summer, two heroic men tragically lost their lives trying to save children in the sea at Seaton Carew beach in Hartlepool. Wayne Taylor and Ian Pascoe were recovered from the water by the Royal National Lifeboat Institution, but despite urgent medical treatment at the scene, tragically both men died. They were heroes. Their courage, selflessness and instinct to protect children in danger represent the very best of our communities. Will the Leader of the House join me in paying tribute to Wayne and Ian, extend the deepest condolences of this House to their families and loved ones, and recognise the bravery of the RNLI and all those who put themselves in harm’s way to save others? Will he urge his ministerial colleagues to ensure that coastal communities such as mine have the resources and lifesaving equipment needed to keep people safe?
Sir Alan Campbell
I absolutely join my hon. Friend in paying tribute to Wayne and Ian, and I offer the heartfelt condolences of the House to their families and loved ones. RNLI volunteers tirelessly provide a critical service in coastal towns and villages across the United Kingdom, including in my constituency. I will ask that Ministers write to my hon. Friend regarding resources for lifesaving services going forward.
Johanna Baxter (Paisley and Renfrewshire South) (Lab)
On Saturday evening, for the fifth year running, the Art Department in my constituency launched the Big Art Show. It is one of the largest visual art exhibitions in the United Kingdom; more than 1,000 works are on display in a variety of mediums. It is a testament to our cultural heritage and the work of the Art Department in encouraging the creative participation of people of all ages and abilities that more than 50% of the works come from Paisley, Renfrewshire and the Greater Glasgow area. Will the Leader of the House join me in congratulating Steven Thomson, the creative director of the Art Department, and his whole team on putting the show together? If my right hon. Friend—or you, Madam Deputy Speaker—happens to be in the west of Scotland during the show, which lasts for the next couple of months, he would be welcome to come to see it.
Sir Alan Campbell
I am happy to join my hon. Friend in congratulating the Art Department team and their creative director, Steven Thomson, on what is clearly an extremely successful project. Should I find myself in Scotland, or indeed should we find ourselves in Scotland, Madam Deputy Speaker—I do not know why we would, but there we are—it would be my pleasure to see the incredible work at first hand.
Liz Twist (Blaydon and Consett) (Lab)
Here we are back from recess, when I had a great time meeting people and businesses across Blaydon and Consett—from Thomas Swan & Co in Consett, which celebrated its centenary, to independent local breweries such as the Thirsty Moose in Ryton and volunteers at the Just Love project in Leadgate. Will the Leader of the House join me in celebrating their hard work, and can we have a debate in Government time on supporting regional manufacturing, high streets and community champions?
Sir Alan Campbell
Recess truly is an opportunity for all Members to engage even further with constituents and see the fantastic work that they do in local communities. The Government are committed to supporting local businesses and high streets. Later this year, we will bring forward the high streets strategy, and our Pride in Place programme is giving up to £5.8 billion over 10 years to support 284 towns. I join my hon. Friend in congratulating businesses in her community; I recognise the names and places very well since it was the land of my birth. I encourage her to apply for what I am sure would be a popular Westminster Hall debate, so that others can also praise the fantastic work of similar businesses and organisations in their constituencies.
Perran Moon (Camborne and Redruth) (Lab)
In Cornwall, the percentage of adults seen by a dentist within the past two years has fallen to just 29%. Cornwall is one of the worst dentistry deserts in the UK, and the lack of access to dentists is now having a profound effect on the health and wellbeing of the Cornish people. Will the Leader of the House arrange for me to meet the relevant Health and Social Care Minister to discuss an urgent plan to deliver the dental care that the duchy deserves?
Sir Alan Campbell
The Government are committed to reforming the dental contract so that we can recruit more dentists and make sure that they work in the NHS for our communities, but I will reach out to the relevant Minister to help arrange a meeting with my hon. Friend on this important matter, particularly because there is a plan to see how these matters can be taken forward.
Mrs Elsie Blundell (Heywood and Middleton North) (Lab)
Functional neurological disorder, or FND, can be debilitating for those affected; symptoms include limb weakness, tremors and chronic pain. Owing to historical commissioning arrangements in my constituency, physiotherapy for FND is not available easily for my constituents. Will the Leader of the House speak to how the Department of Health and Social Care seeks to improve access for FND patients, and bring an end to what has become a postcode lottery for people with such conditions?
Sir Alan Campbell
Functional neurological disorder can have a significant impact on the lives of those affected, as my hon. Friend says, and the Government recognise that access to appropriate support can vary between areas. Integrated care boards are responsible for commissioning services that meet the needs of their local populations and for ensuring that providers deliver services, but I will raise my hon. Friend’s specific concerns with Health Ministers. Perhaps she can meet the relevant Minister to see what further can be done.
Euan Stainbank (Falkirk) (Lab)
Following years of closures of community spaces, places of worship have become increasingly precious to communities across my constituency, especially across the Braes villages. The SNP learned 20 months ago that it was responsible for support grants for places of worship, but has only now delivered a paltry scheme, with seemingly half the resource proportionately as that committed to the scheme down here, top-sliced from the already significantly reduced Historic Environment Scotland budget. Will the Leader of the House support a debate on the importance of places of worship to our communities?
Sir Alan Campbell
As my hon. Friend points out, in England we have launched the places of worship renewal fund. I am pleased that the SNP has finally listened and opened its own scheme, but as my hon. Friend says, it is a rather disappointing scheme. I have already said today, and I have said it previously, that the Scottish Government have had the biggest funding settlement since devolution, and they should be using it for what matters most to the people of Scotland. Scotland’s heritage is of such importance to the nation, and I hope that the Scottish Government have heard what my hon. Friend has said today.
David Williams (Stoke-on-Trent North) (Lab)
Last month, a devastating wildfire ripped through Sandyford and Goldenhill in my constituency. Four homes were completely lost and 13 properties and gardens were badly damaged. Six of our heroic firefighters ended up in hospital having battled with exceptionally difficult conditions. Will the Leader of the House join me in paying tribute to our Staffordshire fire and rescue service, Goldenhill community centre, the Goldenhill working men’s club, the local residents association, local businesses and the volunteers who all rallied around to help their fellow residents?
Sir Alan Campbell
I am sure the whole House will join me in sending our most heartfelt thanks and best wishes to those six brave firefighters. I join my hon. Friend in paying tribute to Staffordshire fire and rescue service and all the community organisations that have come together to look out for one another. It really is the best of community in very challenging times.
Jessica Toale (Bournemouth West) (Lab)
I recently met my constituent Jan, whose daughter Ami died aged 29 of sudden cardiac arrest. I will be joining Ami’s friend, Keyleigh, this weekend on a sponsored walk from Hengistbury Head to Bournemouth to help raise awareness of the condition. Will the Leader of the House ensure that Health Ministers give due consideration to the need to raise awareness about sudden cardiac arrest in young people, so that we can better understand the warning signs and save more lives?
Sir Alan Campbell
My hon. Friend raises a very serious matter. The UK National Screening Committee has just run a public consultation on evidence relating to screening for cardiac conditions associated with sudden cardiac death in young people. It is important that we increase the number of people in the country with valuable lifesaving knowledge of CPR, and we are extending that to all NHS staff. I will make sure that the relevant Health Minister is aware of my hon. Friend’s concerns, and I wish her well in her efforts to raise not just funds but awareness.
Kirsteen Sullivan (Bathgate and Linlithgow) (Lab/Co-op)
Walk for Jock is our Linlithgow banner charity. It was founded in 2012 in loving memory of John Paterson, who died from cancer at the age of 47. Tomorrow, 15 hikers will set off on the 96-mile West Highland Way, as part of community fundraising that has raised more than £250,000 since it started. Will the Leader of the House join me in congratulating John’s brother, Davie, as well as the volunteers, walkers and committee members on their remarkable fundraising effort and wish them a safe journey as they undertake their five-day hike?
Sir Alan Campbell
I certainly join my hon. Friend in wishing all those taking part in Walk for Jock a safe journey in what must be a remarkably beautiful part of the country. Davie’s efforts to keep the memory of his brother John alive are truly admirable. I congratulate everyone involved on their incredible fundraising work and I wish them well.
Tracy Gilbert (Edinburgh North and Leith) (Lab)
Too often, single mothers come to me for help because they are being failed by the Child Maintenance Service. I therefore welcome the Government’s commitment in the tackling child poverty strategy to bring forward legislation to overhaul the CMS. Can the Leader of the House advise me on what progress has been made on that legislation, and may I urge him to ensure that it is brought forward as quickly as possible?
Sir Alan Campbell
My hon. Friend is right to raise this important matter, and I know that it will resonate across the House. We recognise that some parents’ experience of the Child Maintenance Service does not meet the standards that they and we expect, which is why we are committed to reforming the system. As she said, legislation will be brought forward when parliamentary time allows. In the meantime, we continue to take forward work on wider reform and improving outcomes for separated families.
Jayne Kirkham (Truro and Falmouth) (Lab/Co-op)
Over the recess, two serious incidents happened in Truro in my constituency—one led to a death, and one involved a very large knife. Neighbourhood policing in my constituency has been decimated, more recently due to sickness and officers being continually seconded to other duties. Will the Leader of the House take my concerns to colleagues in the Home Office about the allocation of neighbourhood policing in Truro and Falmouth and the regulations on the size of knives in food establishments?
Sir Alan Campbell
We are committed to delivering 13,000 additional neighbourhood policing personnel by the end of the Parliament, with more than 3,000 neighbourhood police officers now in frontline positions. Devon and Cornwall police have been allocated over £8 million for 2026-27, but I recognise my hon. Friend’s concerns and the fact that many forces still face very challenging conditions. I am happy to take forward what she said about funding powers and also knives, but should she wish to have a meeting with the Minister for Policing and Crime to make that point herself, I will help her to arrange one.
David Pinto-Duschinsky (Hendon) (Lab)
On Christmas day last year, residents of Beaufort Park in Colindale in my constituency received an unwanted gift: their freeholders, the Berkeley Group, doubled their ground rent to £800, clearly trying to squeeze leaseholders for every penny before the Government rightly introduce the ground rent cap. It is simply unacceptable. I have written to the executive chair of the Berkeley Group and asked to meet so that we can discuss this rise, but either I have been fobbed off or my letters have gone unanswered. This clearly shows why the Government’s reforms and change to leasehold is so important. Will the Leader of the House join me in calling on Berkeley Homes to meet me, and will he allow for a debate in Government time so that we can discuss how to hold unresponsive freeholders to account?
Sir Alan Campbell
My hon. Friend has been a relentless campaigner on the matter of ground rents, and I pay tribute to him for that. As the Prime Minister confirmed earlier this week, the Government intend to bring forward legislation to reform this unfair system. It is not right that Members are ignored by organisations when they raise matters of interest to their constituents; that is a discourtesy to them, and it is also a discourtesy to this House. I hope that Berkeley Homes has heard what he has said and will up its game.
Chris Kane (Stirling and Strathallan) (Lab)
The city of Stirling football hall of fame was launched last week, with local legends Billy Bremner, Alex Smith, Duncan Ferguson, Jimmy Ryan and Jimmy Bone its first inductees. Their names will now be etched on the new wall of fame at Forthbank stadium. Will the Leader of the House join me in recognising our inaugural inductees, congratulate the Scottish Football Supporters Association for this initiative and make time for a debate on the remarkable contribution that Scotland has made to the beautiful game, not just through our footballers but through the tartan army, whose exploits at this summer’s world cup once again showed the very best of Scotland to the world?
Sir Alan Campbell
I do not recognise all the names that will be going into the hall of fame, but I recognise some of them, and they were remarkable individuals and fantastic and pretty tough footballers. Their names are to be etched on a wall of fame, and rightly so. I pay tribute to all of them and to Scottish football—the organisers and the clubs but also the supporters, who are very much part of the success of football north of the border—and wish them well in the future.
Jim Dickson (Dartford) (Lab)
Southfleet is a beautiful village in the south-east corner of my constituency. It is set in quiet Kent country lanes. It has a 700-year-old church and a history of over 1,000 years, but it is also the entirely inappropriate site for a proposed new data centre, which will take up 90 acres of a 145-acre site next to the village. I recognise as much as anyone the role of data centres in supporting our online activities, which we need to continue our day-to-day lives, but we must ensure that data centres are placed in the right part of this country. Will the Leader of the House find time for a debate on the placement of nationally important infrastructure, including data centres, so that we in this place might discuss the siting of those data centres?
Sir Alan Campbell
My hon. Friend is right to highlight the importance of data centres, and it is important that they are in the right locations. I will raise his concerns with Ministers, but it seems to me that it would be appropriate for him to raise them directly with Ministers, through either an Adjournment debate or a Westminster Hall debate, so that he can speak up for his constituents.
Amanda Martin (Portsmouth North) (Lab)
This week I was devastated to learn that Alan Knight, a true Pompey goalkeeping legend, died aged 65 following a battle with prostate cancer. I had the privilege of meeting Alan many times over the years through my work as an MP, as a member of the Pompey Supporters’ Trust board, as a lifelong Pompey fan and at my own nan’s funeral. He gave 801 appearances in blue and a lifetime giving back to Portsmouth long after he hung up his gloves. He was a strong union man and was awarded an MBE for his services to football as a learning rep for the Professional Footballers’ Association. Following his diagnosis, he helped raise awareness and thousands of pounds for prostate cancer charities, helping many people in Portsmouth and beyond. Will my right hon. Friend join me in sharing my and Portsmouth’s condolences with Alan’s family and friends at this incredibly sad time and honour this Portsmouth giant?
Sir Alan Campbell
I am honoured to do as my hon. Friend says. I am sure the House will join me in sending our condolences to the family and friends of Alan Knight. He will be fondly remembered not just for his exceptional charity work but also, of course, for his football career. Let me stray slightly more widely than that, Madam Deputy Speaker. The football community can be rightly proud of the way in which it has highlighted issues around prostate cancer. I want to pay tribute not just to Alan but to the wider football community.
Fleur Anderson (Putney) (Lab)
The impact of flights going over my constituency is enormous—one goes over every 90 seconds—so lots of Putney residents got involved in the Government’s consultation on the Heathrow expansion national policy statement during the summer, which closed on Monday. The consultation being held in the summer was concerning, because it limited public participation. Will the Leader of the House provide Government time for a debate on the Heathrow expansion proposals, before decisions are made, so that we can raise constituents’ concerns and inform Ministers’ decisions?
Sir Alan Campbell
It is important that the concerns of both my hon. Friend and local residents are heard, which is why the consultation took place. The 10-week consultation has now closed. We are looking at the responses, and I am sure that once those responses have been looked at and digested, there will be an opportunity for the Government to bring this matter forward for scrutiny and debate in the House. If she wishes to pre-empt that in any way, through an Adjournment or Westminster Hall debate, I am sure that she would find others who wanted to take part.
Building Homes and Renewing Communities
(1 day, 7 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Angela Rayner)
The Prime Minister has this week set out our plan to bring back hope, after a decade of decline. Today I want to update the House on the first steps that my Department is taking to rise to these new challenges.
We know that the sense of decline that people feel runs deep. The causes are not straightforward, and it did not happen overnight, but the most visible sign of it—a constant reminder of political and economic failure—is the state of our high streets: shuttered-up shops reminding us of what once was, and organised crime too often out there, visible, in the open. Decades of deregulation and austerity for local government and the recent cost of living crisis all share the blame. Every part of Government has a role to play in getting our high streets booming again, so in response we are rebuilding the local state, giving councils new powers over their high streets and putting them back in control of their town and city centres.
Local leaders know their high streets best and are best placed to bring them back to life, so in the months ahead we will support councils to block new bookies, vape shops and so-called casinos, and we will double the length of closure orders from six to 12 months, so that police have longer to investigate dodgy shops. We will improve high street shopfronts by setting clearer expectations for their design and appearance. That is alongside our Pride in Place programme, which is giving local communities £6 billion to improve their areas.
Everyone who has walked down their high street will have spotted another glaring signal of state failure: people sleeping rough. In 2026, in the world’s fifth richest economy, everyone should have a roof over their head. That is who we are as a country. This is a kind, caring nation where people take pride in looking out for each other, and that is why we will end rough sleeping in our country. When I visited Changing Lives in Newcastle over the summer, I met the incredible Sabrina Cohen-Hatton. Today Sabrina is chief fire officer for Hampshire and the Isle of Wight, but as a teenager she experienced homelessness. Sabrina is an absolute inspiration and shows that if people are given the right support that they need, they can transform their lives.
By Christmas this year, everyone sleeping rough will be offered a route off the streets. We have set aside £442 million for a new rough sleeping programme to meet that milestone, while investing in accommodation and support to end it for good. That takes our total investment in homelessness and rough sleeping services to more than £4 billion over the next three years. We know that the reasons people sleep rough are complex. For example, eight out of 10 rough sleepers have a mental health vulnerability. Our plans are more than just accommodation; it is a whole-system approach that will also include access to health, substance or employment support. Women who are homeless are not always visibly sleeping rough, so we are specifically asking services to meet women where they are, to ensure that they get the support they need.
Rough sleeping is just the worst symptom of an underlying crisis that we are determined to tackle. For too long, Britain has not built the homes that we need. We are getting Britain building, with council housing at the centre of our plans. The failure to build council homes to replace those that were sold off is one of the major causes of the housing crisis that we inherited at the last election. Last month I met families in Kidbrooke who told me that when they moved into their new social homes, it took so much stress away. One resident told me that they had come from a place with mould on the walls and mice on the floor, and that finding out that they were moving into a new home was like winning the lottery.
Last week I announced the first wave of our allocations for the social and affordable homes programme. That is more than 70,000 homes, nearly two-thirds of which will be for social rent. We also announced new support for councils to rebuild their capacity, including a further £46 million over three years, and an expansion of the Pathways to Planning programme. This follows our new national planning policy framework, which will unlock thousands of homes around train stations, and our announcement of new housing and planning powers for mayors, who can now call in planning applications for strategic sites, and grant up-front permission to build for the benefit of local people. We are also giving them greater say over how national housing funding is spent in their areas, with Homes England investment now focused on their priorities.
Solving the housing crisis is not just a moral cause, it is an economic necessity. Every shovel in the ground means new investment, new jobs and growth in every postcode. We must also put power in every postcode. The legacies of political choices in the 1980s and the decades since, the centralisation of political power, privatisation of economic wealth, and de-industrialisation all contributed to the loss of control that so many people feel today. The future of our country relies on us building a new economic and political settlement that serves those we represent.
That starts with the largest ever transfer of power and funding out to every region of England. For the first time, mayors will receive a share of income tax revenues, meaning that they can invest in what matters most locally. They will also be given new powers to bring rail and bus services under local control, run 16-to-19 funding and employment support, and back local industries and businesses to create new jobs. Where power is devolved, resources will be devolved too. That will end the begging-bowl culture of the past and pave the way for a new era of devolution. In the months ahead we will make sure that every area benefits, by supporting areas without a mayor to establish new strategic authorities.
Finally, I want to take a moment to thank all of those involved in the response to the wildfires this summer, including the firefighters, who showed immense bravery battling the flames. I saw the horrendous damage in Stourbridge at first hand, and the level of emotional turmoil was devastating. I will never forget meeting a woman on Quarry Park Road whose neighbour was widowed less than a year ago; she had lost her home and all her possessions too. During the fires we made emergency funding available, and this autumn the Prime Minister will chair a wildfire summit to discuss what more we can do to improve our resilience. The wildfires and extreme heat show the threat that we face from the climate crisis. We must treat this as an emergency in itself.
The steps we are taking are only the start. In the months ahead, we will take through the Representation of the People Bill, giving 16 and 17-year-olds the vote and protecting our elections from foreign interference; we will speed up building safety remediation and end the feudal leasehold system; and we will work with local leaders as we fix the foundations of local government. The Prime Minister has promised a new political and economic model and, together, we are shaping it.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I call the shadow Secretary of State.
Katie Lam (Weald of Kent) (Con)
I thank the Secretary of State for advance sight of her statement. It is a pleasure to see her again so soon. I join her in thanking those involved in the response to this summer’s wildfires, and applauding their remarkable courage.
The Secretary of State is right to note that for far too many people across the country the sense of decline runs deep. In far too many places, organised criminals have taken over the high street, and in far too many cases, a place to sleep is something that people cannot take for granted. The stories I have been told by constituents who have experienced rough sleeping or unsafe housing remain some of the most challenging and profound I have heard since coming to this place.
Although the Secretary of State talks about a new political and economic model, I am afraid that what we have heard today is a recipe for more of the same. While her focus on the scourge of organised crime on the high street is welcome, I am concerned that she addresses a symptom of the problem but not the underlying cause. While many bookies, vape shops and high street casinos are clearly legitimate, their cash intensiveness and lower overhead costs make them particularly attractive as fronts for money laundering. However, if those businesses are closed, criminals will simply find other types of high street businesses through which to launder money. What conversations is the Secretary of State having with her Home Office colleagues on dealing with organised crime?
The right hon. Lady talks about the devolution of power and resources to local people, but what she really means is more politicians being given the power to increase the size of the state and raise taxes, but never to let people keep more of their own money or to interfere less in their lives. Will she confirm whether any tax raising powers devolved to mayors will be accompanied by powers to reduce tax—and if not, why not?
Similarly, while the right hon. Lady is right to recognise the vital importance of addressing the housing affordability crisis, the answer cannot be spending ever more taxpayers’ money. Instead, the state must stop making it so difficult and so expensive to get new houses built in the places where people want to live. A greater supply of homes in those places will mean lower costs for everybody, particularly those who are renting and those looking to get on the housing ladder. In London, where our housing crisis is most acute, Labour has been in power for over a decade. Under Sadiq Khan, housing starts fell to their lowest level ever in 2024-25. Construction began on just 4,000 homes across our capital. Can the Secretary of State explain why Labour’s London mayor has failed to get to grips with this problem? Will the changes she proposes actually solve the housing crisis in the capital? If not, it is a little difficult to understand why she is introducing them.
Finally, on homelessness and rough sleeping, we share the Government’s ambition to end rough sleeping, but it is impossible to ignore the fact that the new Prime Minister promised to do exactly that in his 2017 manifesto for the Greater Manchester mayoralty. His pledge was to end rough sleeping within three years. In fact, rough sleeping in Greater Manchester has increased every year since 2021, including in 2024-25 when the Labour party was also in power nationally. Can the Secretary of State therefore explain why the Prime Minister failed to solve rough sleeping in Greater Manchester, bearing in mind that it increased when both the local authority and the national Government were run by the Labour party? Can she explain why anybody should believe that he will be able to do so nationally?
Angela Rayner
I welcome the hon. Member to her place, and I look forward to facing her across the Dispatch Box in the months to come. She comes with a good, strong track record: I believe her grandparents met while they were delivering leaflets for the Labour party—so that’s a good start! I welcome her tone, in particular her agreement on supporting those who helped us over the summer with the wildfires. I look forward to working with her constructively, especially as we move towards the summit in the autumn; I will keep her informed.
Some of the challenges we face are of long standing. It would be remiss of me not to gently remind the Conservatives that their austerity measures hollowed out our local services and that the decline in our high streets started on their watch, but the hon. Lady is absolutely right to highlight the challenges our high streets face—that is why we have a strategy. We have made announcements to make sure that we tackle organised crime, giving the police more powers and more funding, with a £30 million boost to police and Trading Standards activity as well as strengthened closure orders and a new high streets organised crime unit. We are tackling the issues that the Conservative party failed to tackle.
The Prime Minister has been really clear about ensuring that we work with local leaders and that they are able to do the things that will help them in their local communities, so they can really start to tackle some of the issues. On tax-raising powers and the reduction of tax—again, that is an ongoing dialogue. The hon. Lady will have seen the statement from the whole of Cabinet and the work we are doing through the National Economic Council to work with mayors and local leaders so we can take those issues forward.
I was bemused by the hon. Lady saying that the state has made it hard to build. The Conservatives missed every single housing target they set, and they scrapped targets completely after pressure from their own Back Benchers. We have brought in new powers and updated the national planning policy framework. We are giving more powers to mayors, we have brought in mandatory housing targets and mandatory housing plans, and we are working with local areas to deliver the housing we need. We have been very up front about that, but we have also been really clear that infrastructure, wildlife and nature have to be taken into account. I will not take lectures from those in the party opposite, when they created a housing crisis where millions of families were locked out of home ownership.
Specifically on London, the city has built significant amounts of council housing, but the hon. Lady is absolutely right to raise the challenges that London faces. When we look at the number of children in temporary accommodation, it is clear that London has an acute need. We recognise that and have provided support through the allocation of money through the social and affordable housing programme. We also recognise the success that the Mayor of London has had in ramping up housing supply where it is needed.
Finally, let me turn to what happened in Greater Manchester under our new Prime Minister. The numbers actually fell originally—as a Greater Manchester MP, I saw that—but because there was not a national programme, the numbers then went up as more people came to Greater Manchester. We want to roll out a programme, working with local leaders and mayors, so we can offer that support. I hope the hon. Member will work with us, because I remember that this used to be a target for the Conservatives: they wanted to end rough sleeping, but then they scrapped the target. I hope they can work with us on this renewed effort, in the spirit of how the Prime Minister wants to work, to ensure that we can roll out a programme nationally where everyone who is rough sleeping has an option of safety and an option to come in.
Melanie Onn (Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes) (Lab)
I thank the Secretary of State for very timely and welcome statement. Let me point to a good development in Grimsby—a really good example of town centre housebuilding that is working with local housing associations. The partnership is between Keepmoat and Ongo northern Lincolnshire housing association, and it will provide a mix of private accommodation and social housing. She will find in her mailbox a letter from the leader of the Labour group, Emma Clough, who has written to her to raise the issue of town centre houses, and in particular empty homes in town centres, to ask whether the Government will be looking to put in place additional measures to support local authorities to tackle the scourge of empty homes, which number nearly 2,000 across Grimsby.
Angela Rayner
My hon. Friend has been a great champion for Grimsby for a very long time—I think we both originally came here together in 2015—and I congratulate her on her work. She is absolutely right to praise the housing associations coming together to build the homes that people desperately need. I will look at that letter, which she is absolutely right to highlight. I will bring forward proposals on how we are working with councils to deal with the empty homes situation.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
Gideon Amos (Taunton and Wellington) (LD)
I congratulate the right hon. Lady on her appointment. I look forward to our exchanges, and to working with her and her team.
There are millions fewer council houses than there used to be, yet the need for social housing has only increased, not least given the scourge of poor-quality temporary accommodation for too many children. The Shared Health Foundation has found that in the last six years, temporary accommodation has been noted by the coroner as a contributory factor in the deaths of 104 children.
In Taunton and Wellington and elsewhere, all that people see are unprecedented plans for private housing that many will not be able to afford. Councils have been instructed by Whitehall to consent to homes for 180,000 people in Somerset over the next 15 years—a 25% increase in the pace of growth, never seen in the county’s history. What we need instead is a truly ambitious programme of council and social housing—not the Government’s reannouncement that 60% of its 300,000 programme will be social housing and not the 18,000 per year, but the Lib Dem policy of 150,000 social homes a year.
I recognise that the statement confirms around 46,000 social homes over 10 years, with further tranches to come, but will the Housing Secretary and the new Prime Minister, who has said a lot about social housing, raise the target from 18,000 a year or not? Will the Government raise their £3.9 billion funding to our proposed £6 billion? If they will not do that, will they write off some of the councils’ housing revenue account debt so that councils such as Somerset can build the 600 council houses that they would build if they could?
Angela Rayner
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to raise this issue, which is one that the Prime Minister feels incredibly passionate about. He has committed to delivering the biggest council house building programme since the post-war boom ended in the early 1980s, and although I recognise the challenges, I also want to celebrate the fact that last year, councils built the most council houses since records began in 1991. However, we want to see that ramp up with the money we are investing to help councils, as I outlined earlier.
We have already taken measures, as Members can see from the legislation that is going through at the moment—it has been through the other place—to tighten up the right to buy and make sure that councils keep full receipts. We are supporting that programme, and we should recognise the significance of the £10 billion of investment that was announced last month. This is about making sure that we get that money out the door so that we can build those homes, and the planning reforms we have introduced are about making sure that people have a say about those homes, but also about having clarity, so that the homes and the infrastructure around them are built.
The hon. Gentleman is right to mention the number of children in temporary accommodation. I still think it is absolutely awful that those children are in those circumstances, and that is why we want to tackle social housing in particular.
Mr Jonathan Brash (Hartlepool) (Lab)
Our councils are the front door to our democracy, and after years of damage, too many people have lost faith in what lies behind it. Does the Secretary of State agree that rebuilding strong, trusted local government must be central to rebuilding trust in politics? On the issue of high streets, will she meet me to discuss how existing tools such as high-street rental auctions can be made simpler and easier for councils to use, so that communities such as Hartlepool can bring empty shops back into use?
Angela Rayner
My hon. Friend is right to highlight the role of local government. I came from a local government background, and then represented local government workers across the board for many years as a Unison rep, so I am slightly biased about what local government does. We should think about what has happened to local government—the pressures that are on our local councils at the moment, and have been on them since 2010, and how they have had to evolve with those pressures and challenges. I absolutely commend local councils and their representatives for the work they are doing. That is why this Government have given more funding to councils and have freed up some of the itty-bitty pots, to try to make it easier for councils to do the work they want to do.
Turning to auctions, we have also been making sure that we can support councils in implementing the plan that we want to put in place for our high streets, so that more powers are in place and we can safeguard community assets. The high-street rental auction powers will also bring closed-down pubs and properties back into use.
Mr Gagan Mohindra (South West Hertfordshire) (Con)
I welcome the Secretary of State back to the Front Bench; the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee looks forward to scrutinising her in due course. As she will be aware, South West Hertfordshire has beautiful green-belt land, and she will have seen press reports about unauthorised clearance of sites over the last bank holiday weekend. While some of these clearances may be legal and lawful, my constituents consistently have concerns about the lack of information, and worry that when bulldozers and tree-clearing equipment turns up on a Saturday morning, council officers are not available until the following Tuesday, after the bank holiday weekend. What more can the Secretary of State and her Department do to make sure that my residents do not have that fear?
Angela Rayner
I thank the hon. Member for raising this issue, which Ministers and myself were discussing only yesterday. I will make sure that he gets an update on that. It is deeply concerning that over the bank holiday weekend, some try to do things that they know are not okay and are completely unacceptable. We are cracking down on illegal Traveller sites, and it is important that we do. Our new planning rules explicitly tackle any potential environmental damage and transport impacts, making it harder for people to get retrospective permission. However, I will contact the hon. Member about that specific case, because I know it has caused great concern to people in his area.
Alan Strickland (Newton Aycliffe and Spennymoor) (Lab)
I strongly welcome the investment in social housing. What more can the Department do to make sure that the necessary social infrastructure comes with those new homes—the school places, doctors and dentists that we have struggled to secure in my constituency to support new homes, and that we need around the country?
Angela Rayner
My hon. Friend is absolutely right to highlight this issue, which I was acutely aware of, because I do not like it when this debate becomes about people who are opposed to new homes versus those who are not; actually, most of the time, people are concerned about the infrastructure that comes with those new homes. The reforms we have made through the national planning policy framework and the Planning and Infrastructure Act 2025 put provisions in place to make sure that when those homes are built, there is local input into the planning process, but also, critically, that the infrastructure is there, so that local people can see that those homes enhance their area. That will alleviate some of the genuine concerns that people raise.
Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
Does the Secretary of State accept that there is an intimate link between local government reform and the successful carrying-out of major house building programmes? One of the reasons I warmly welcome her return to office is the failure of her predecessor, the right hon. Member for Streatham and Croydon North (Steve Reed), either to confirm or deny on 16 July the report in The Times on 18 June that senior civil servants and lawyers in three separate Departments had been overruled when they advised him not to make local government reorganisation decisions merely at the behest of Labour-led councils. Will the Secretary of State undertake to look at this issue again, particularly in the light of the number of boundary changes involved, and given that her colleague, the hon. Member for Oldham West, Chadderton and Royton (Jim McMahon)—now mercifully back in action—had originally promised that boundary changes would be rare exceptions, and that particularly strong reasons would have to be put forward in justification?
Angela Rayner
Without straying too much into that area, I will just say to the right hon. Member that my principle with local government reform is that it is about the best services for the people in a local area. That is the only way that we get buy-in from people to deliver that, including through our local representatives—local councillors, many of whom are doing a fantastic job of addressing the challenges that local government faces. To me, local government reform is about making sure that areas can deliver on things like transport, education and health in a way that is best for those people. I will look into the issues that the right hon. Member has raised.
Rachel Blake (Cities of London and Westminster) (Lab/Co-op)
It is really great to hear from the Secretary of State today. Members across this Chamber will know about the harm that damp and mould does to children and their families. It is absolutely right that we have brought in Awaab’s law, for which there was real cross-party support, but what are we doing to monitor its impact? How should housing associations and social landlords be regulated to make sure that they are enacting Awaab’s law and are on top of the timelines in it?
Angela Rayner
I thank my hon. Friend for her question, as well as for the visit we made together, on which we met that wonderful young mother who had been to hell and back. What was a dream of home ownership turned into hell. Her experience is one that many people up and down the country have also experienced, and that visit is still very much at the forefront of my mind as we take things forward. Of course, Awaab and his family were from Greater Manchester—it was a tragic case of a young person losing their life because of the conditions they lived in. We are absolutely clear that we have to take Awaab’s law forward; we have carried out a process of test and learn as part of that, and phase 2 is now being implemented to make sure we are continually, robustly proving that those laws are in place and will deliver what we expect them to.
Ian Roome (North Devon) (LD)
I thank the Secretary of State for saying that closure orders will be extended to combat dodgy shops on our high streets. In my constituency, the police have fought a running battle against shops with secret compartments selling counterfeit cigarettes. However, having talked to my local trading standards office in Devon, it is clear to me that those offices do not have nearly enough personnel to investigate suspicious businesses. Will the Secretary of State’s Department make sure that the funding given to local councils to do this is ringfenced for the purpose of recruiting more trading standards officers?
Angela Rayner
I thank the hon. Member for raising this important issue. I can appreciate that it has been acute in North Devon, but it is coming up across the whole of England. That is why we are strengthening the orders, and I thank him for acknowledging that. We have, as I mentioned, invested £30 million to boost police and trading standards activity, with thousands of businesses expected to face raids, closures and cash seizures. I hope he will be in touch with his local police and trading standards office to see how they are implementing this in his North Devon constituency.
Ms Abena Oppong-Asare (Erith and Thamesmead) (Lab)
I thank the Secretary of State for her statement, and in particular for outlining what her Government are doing on wildfires. As Minister, I oversaw the emergency alerts and the creation of the risk vulnerability tool. What work are the Government doing to strengthen the resilience plan, so that we can be better prepared for the future? Will she share with us the lessons learned from the emergency alert issued on 14 August?
Angela Rayner
I congratulate my hon. Friend on the work she has been doing. We are making almost £1.95 billion available to stand-alone fire and rescue authorities in England through the local government finance settlement. That can be used for training and preparation, and prevention based on local risks. We are making wildfire advice more visible, including through social media, during high-risk periods. We have the “Fire Kills” campaign, and the education platform led by the National Fire Chiefs Council. I have mentioned the wildfire summit, which will consider how we can go further.
Wendy Morton (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con)
An estimated 1.4 million consented homes in England remain unbuilt. Why will the Secretary of State not concentrate on getting those homes built before demanding that councils surrender more green-belt and greenfield land? Otherwise, developers just cherry-pick the most profitable sites, instead of building the homes for which they have already been given permission.
Angela Rayner
My simple answer is that we are doing that. It is why we strengthened the national planning policy framework. As I have said, this is not just about one lever; a number of factors need to be considered. We have been doing that, and that includes having mandatory housing targets and plans for local areas. We are strengthening, we are pushing, and we are making sure that we fix the mess that the previous Government left us.
Clive Efford (Eltham and Chislehurst) (Lab)
It was a pleasure to join my right hon. Friend at Greenwich council’s development of 435 council properties in my constituency for the launch of the social and affordable housing programme. Some 70,000 homes are planned, and that is welcome and overdue. However, my constituency and ones like it have a lot of sports grounds, and as we push for more land, the temptation is for owners of those grounds to lock the gates, in the hope that they will make a windfall from developing those sites. Will my right hon. Friend reassure my constituents that that will not be allowed under the programme to build the housing that we need?
Angela Rayner
It was a great pleasure to visit the site with my hon. Friend. I outlined in my opening statement something that touched me, which is how people spoke about getting a home and the conditions they had before. They literally said it was like winning the lottery—it was life-changing. As I outlined to the shadow Secretary of State earlier, I think about those children affected, especially those impacted by the acute housing crisis that London faces. I congratulate the Mayor of London and London councils working to deal with that. We announced the funding grant to help London with the particular problem it has had. My hon. Friend is right to raise the subject of protection of spaces. That is what we have done through strengthening the national planning policy framework. The Housing Minister would be happy to chat more with my hon. Friend about that—I am sure they already do, as they are neighbours—but it is important that we continue that work, too.
Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con)
The Secretary State mentioned mandatory housing targets. Under Labour’s targets, in south Essex—from Grays across to Shoeburyness—we are expected to accommodate more than 100,000 houses. That is 7% of the Government’s entire 1.5 million target in one half of one county alone. That is despite the fact that our medical infrastructure, our sewage capacity and in particular our roads—the A13 and the A127 are maxed out as it is—simply cannot cope, even now. [Interruption.] Labour Members can chunter all they want. Why is Labour so determined to cover south Essex in concrete and gridlock our roads, purely for ideological reasons?
Angela Rayner
We can look at it another way: I am confident that the right hon. Member and local councillors can work in partnership with us to recognise the acute housing need within his local area and to deliver, with well-connected local transport, the homes that are so desperately needed. His Government failed to deliver them, and I am sure his inbox is full of people who need those homes. We will work with his local leaders to deliver the homes and infrastructure that people in his constituency desperately need.
Mohammad Yasin (Bedford) (Lab)
Will the Secretary of State meet me to discuss the St Andrews estate in Bedford, where local residents and children walking to Great Ouse primary academy are being put at risk by dangerous driving and parking on estate roads that require traffic safety measures, but have remained unadopted for around eight years. What action will she take to address the wider problems of developers and local authorities passing responsibilities between themselves, leaving estate residents waiting years for roads to be completed and adopted?
Angela Rayner
I am sure that the residents of St Andrews estate are frustrated, but I commend the work of my hon. Friend in highlighting this issue. It is not acceptable for roads to be left unadopted for years and for people to be left in those circumstances. I am happy to arrange a meeting with the relevant Minister to look at how we can support him in his endeavour to deal with this matter.
Vikki Slade (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (LD)
Communities such as Wimborne, Merley and Bearwood have doubled in size in the past few years, with no extra roads—[Interruption.] It is not funny. The people there have no extra roads, no water treatment plants, no new GPs, and the remaining areas of green belt specifically designated to separate them have disappeared. Their communities are being forced to build thousands more—it is 7,000 a year in Dorset, similar to Essex—but they are not selling. These houses are lying empty, which means that the community infrastructure is not being built, and we have empty homes everywhere. The local population cannot afford them. The social housing providers do not want them, because they are built under old standards. We run the risk of them being filled with holidaymakers. We need a review of this huge housing target, so that it is based on need in the local community, with a requirement for the infrastructure to come first. Can the Secretary of State please help?
Angela Rayner
I can honestly feel the hon. Member’s frustration. One of the issues that I picked up when I first became Secretary of State, as I outlined earlier, is that it is not about opposition to new housing, but frustration because of the infrastructure not being there, the form of the houses built and how local people cannot afford them. I have complete sympathy with what the hon. Member is saying. That is why we have been making changes to the national planning policy framework and to how we do building consents, so that we can get these houses built where they are accessible to local people and where developments are contributing to the wider local community, including with services. I am happy to speak to her about the specifics. If there are empty houses that local people cannot get and the infrastructure is not there, I can fully appreciate why people would be frustrated.
Deirdre Costigan (Ealing Southall) (Lab)
The Secretary of State is right to say that the reasons people sleep rough are complex, and Ealing Southall is almost unique in that many of our rough sleepers do not have the right to stay or work in the country, so the council cannot legally help them off the streets. Will she meet me to find ways of making it easier for this group of rough sleepers to reconnect with family abroad and return home with dignity?
Angela Rayner
My hon. Friend is absolutely right to raise this issue: we have to do more to make sure that people who have exercised all their appeals and want to return home can do so. I will work with my colleagues in the Home Office to look at how we can tackle that issue, alongside the package that we are putting in place over the winter.
Robbie Moore (Keighley and Ilkley) (Con)
Silsden in my constituency is being inundated by a huge number of housing developments. In the last few years, we have had seven different housing developers all building houses, with no focus whatsoever on improving infrastructure or services. It is getting to the stage that Silsden cannot cope. It gets worse than that, because the section 106 money that is collected, which Bradford council negotiated with the housing developer under the last Labour administration, is not being spent on mitigating the negative implications of the housing developments, and the council has no local plan in place. We are seeing a lot of speculative development coming down the line, and it is simply not good enough. I have to say to the Secretary of State that this was all overseen by the last Labour administration at Bradford council.
What in today’s announcement from the Secretary of State will deliver something positive for my constituents, and something that addresses the key issue of infrastructure and service improvement when house building does happen?
Angela Rayner
I thank the hon. Member for raising this issue. We have strengthened the role of infrastructure within the national planning policy framework. The announcement is about making sure that local areas can deliver on local plans, and I have been very clear on that as the Secretary of State. I can hear his frustration about section 106 money, and there are legitimate reasons why it is sometimes delayed, but it is an area that I have focused on since returning to this post. I have focused on that with the Housing Minister, and I am due to be in touch again with local authorities to ensure that the money is going out the door and that right-to-buy receipts, which we have strengthened for councils, are going out the door in order to create the homes and infrastructure that local areas desperately need.
Mike Kane (Wythenshawe and Sale East) (Lab)
The Secretary of State knows my constituency well, and she knows that I have been campaigning for several years to regenerate Wythenshawe civic centre. Thanks to this Government, we are about to cut the turf on building 2,000 new homes within the decade, and phase one starts with building 800 social homes in the next few weeks. Is the Secretary of State prepared to don her best Doc Martens, pop out of No. 10 North and cut the ceremonial piece of turf?
Angela Rayner
That’s a tough question! My hon. Friend knows full well that my mum’s side of the family are from Wythenshawe, so I know the civic centre very well. I used to spend many a weekend at Woodhouse Park social club—unfortunately no longer there—but I can see the civic pride across the whole of Wythenshawe. I am not the most famous person whose family are from Wythenshawe—we all know a famous footballer who has done incredible work in that area—but never mind. I congratulate my hon. Friend on the work that he is doing. Those 2,000 homes are desperately needed in the local area. I have fond memories of growing up around there, and I would be absolutely honoured to come back.
Mr Louie French (Old Bexley and Sidcup) (Con)
The Secretary of State failed to recommit to the 1.5 million new homes pledge in Labour’s manifesto. She also failed to mention the almost £5 billion that was provided to the Mayor of London by the previous Conservative Government and the fact that this Labour Government have been forced to cut the mayor’s housing target, given his poor record of delivery here in London. One way that the Secretary of State can help improve London’s family housing crisis is by giving local councils more powers to stop bad HMOs. They are destroying family housing in communities across the capital, particularly in outer London. Will she commit to that today?
Angela Rayner
I disagree with the hon. Member on what is happening in London. Half of all council homes built in 2024-25 were in London, showing what can be achieved through devolution and the London Mayor, Sadiq Khan, who has been doing a fantastic job. That is why I have confidence that the social and affordable housing programme will give more investment to London so that it can deal with the acute situation it faces.
On HMOs, I will take no lectures from the Conservatives, who left us in a very difficult situation. The issue is under review, and we are working with local authorities and mayors to make sure that planning circumstances do not create situations that cause tensions through HMOs.
Nesil Caliskan (Barking) (Lab)
I warmly welcome the Secretary of State to her place. Local GPs in my constituency serve 20% more patients than the national average, and it is particularly bad at Barking Riverside, where there is new development. Unlike Conservative Members, I strongly support new homes being built, because my constituents feel the pain of the housing crisis. However, the fact that we do not have enough GPs, schools and other crucial infrastructure means that they are being let down. May I press the Secretary of State to give us further assurances that as this Government deliver the homes that this country and my constituency need, GPs are also delivered?
Angela Rayner
There is a theme developing here, and I think it comes from years of not having enough infrastructure. People are rightly concerned about that. I mentioned earlier that there is a lot of opposition to our planning reforms and the mandatory housing targets that we have set as a Government. I hear it loud and clear, and I want my hon. Friend’s constituents, my constituents and everyone else’s constituents to know that I am acutely aware that the infrastructure that people desperately need must come alongside the housing. I do not think they are nimbys; they raise genuine concerns, and I have heard them loud and clear. That is why we have strengthened the national planning policy framework, particularly on GPs.
I am sure that my colleagues in Health have heard my hon. Friend, but I will make sure that there is a nod to what is happening in her area. I want to reassure the House that I am acutely aware that if we are going to ramp up house building, which we absolutely must do—our constituents expect it—that has to be done in a way that ensures that local people are involved in the process and that the infrastructure is there too.
Manuela Perteghella (Stratford-on-Avon) (LD)
The south Warwickshire local plan requires more than 27,000 new homes to be allocated to Stratford-on-Avon district under the standard method, and my constituents support the delivery of truly affordable homes and social rent. However, these homes are not going to be affordable for local people, and housing growth continues to outpace investment in transport, schools, GPs, and drainage and sewage infrastructure. Will the Secretary of State review the mandatory targets to ensure that local housing need rather than a centralised formula determines housing allocations in rural areas? Can she also guarantee that the infrastructure will keep pace with development instead of lagging years behind, if it is delivered at all?
Angela Rayner
The local target is based on housing stock and affordability. I appreciate the hon. Lady’s comments on affordable housing, and I take her back to what the Prime Minister has said about needing more social housing—I am sure that she appreciates that this is an issue. We will make sure that we lean towards that and build the houses that people need so that local people can get access to the homes that are built in their area, and the infrastructure is an important part of that.
The hon. Lady mentions water drainage and water supply. We have not built a reservoir for decades, and this Government are now taking action to make sure that we build reservoirs and the critical infrastructure that we need to deliver for the housing that we need.
Anna Dixon (Shipley) (Lab)
I am delighted to see my right hon. Friend back in her role, and I am really pleased that the Government have committed to fast-track developments close to transport hubs. It is a fantastic opportunity to build housing around Shipley station, which is close to the recently refurbished Shipley market. High-quality and affordable housing would help increase footfall and bring regeneration to the high street. Will the Secretary of State join me and the West Yorkshire Mayor, Tracy Brabin, on a visit to Shipley to see the opportunity for herself, and will she help to accelerate house building in Shipley?
Angela Rayner
I often visit the West Yorkshire Mayor and her geographical area, and Shipley is a great place. It is a really good drive from my house in Manchester to Shipley—I would recommend it to anyone. I always jump at the chance to go to the area, and I congratulate the West Yorkshire Mayor, my hon. Friend and her local leaders on the work that they are doing to deliver the homes that people desperately need.
Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)
How does the Secretary of State square what she said in the statement about wanting to
“put power in every postcode”
with the reality of what her Government are doing to Buckinghamshire? They have increased our housing target by 43%—while letting London off some of its target—but if we had power locally, we would categorically not choose to build. They have also been telling Buckinghamshire council that if it turns down too many planning applications and actually supports the residents of Buckinghamshire, it will have its planning powers taken away. That is not putting power into every postcode; that is central diktat, isn’t it?
Angela Rayner
I disagree with how the hon. Member has framed that question. Housing targets are based on housing stock and affordability, and local plans are mandatory—which his party removed—so we are actually strengthening this, and being more strategic and clear about where houses and the infrastructure that people need should go. I urge him to engage in that process, look at the key changes to the national planning policy framework and use them to benefit his constituents.
Jessica Toale (Bournemouth West) (Lab)
Over the conference recess, my team and I are taking over a shop in Bournemouth town centre and filling it with a range of community and cultural uses that showcase our amazing local organisations. Meanwhile spaces have a range of benefits for our high streets. They give small businesses and charities a chance, fill persistently empty shops and create better collaboration between councils, landlords and tenants. However, they often require councils to use the powers at their disposal, particularly on rates relief and the bit of capital investment for persistently neglected units. I really welcome the measures announced over the summer to improve high streets, but can the Secretary of State tell me how meanwhile spaces fit into the Government’s high streets strategy?
Angela Rayner
I think this is really important, and I congratulate my hon. Friend on the work that Bournemouth is doing, which sounds absolutely fantastic. These are exactly the sorts of projects we want, as opposed to vape shops, betting shops and other elements. This is about what do we do with that space, and the measures that we have outlined—on the community right to buy, high street rental auctions, giving local places practical powers and cutting business rates, as we announced over the summer—are about making sure that local areas can use that space. We are bringing forward a high streets strategy, and I hope she will engage with my Department about what she can contribute, because she has clearly demonstrated that she can do so in her local area.
Ben Obese-Jecty (Huntingdon) (Con)
As the Secretary of State will be aware, we are still awaiting a local government reorganisation decision in Cambridgeshire and Peterborough. To that extent, as I laid out in my Westminster Hall debate on Monday, I very much back a Huntingdonshire unitary authority, because of the opportunities for growth it will afford the region, including the delivery of the Ministry of Defence’s Project Fairfax, which I had the opportunity to discuss with her Housing Minister earlier this year. Before she makes her final decision, could I invite her to speak to Huntingdonshire district council to clarify any of the decisions about which her predecessor required clarification before he could make a decision? Will she also assure my constituents that the area involved in any such decision will be coterminous with the current district authority boundaries, so that we do not lose any more time in disaggregating functions, because we have already lost two months ahead of the elections next May?
Angela Rayner
I thank the hon. Member for raising this important issue for his area. As he outlined, my colleagues the Housing Minister responded to him earlier this week, and I know he said there would be an outcome by the end of October. The hon. Member has done his job well in representing his constituents by raising the issue with me as the Secretary of State today, and I have noted it.
Perran Moon (Camborne and Redruth) (Lab)
I really welcome the Prime Minister’s commitment this week to work on Cornish devolution, but the Housing Minister—and he did not make up the rules—has told me that the population of Cornwall is too small to be granted a strategic place partnership, despite the fact that our population is greater than that of Iceland, Malta and Barbados. Our lack of social housing is one of the greatest blockers to regeneration in Cornwall, so we are very keen to take up a strategic place partnership. Is there a chance that I could get a meeting with the Housing Minister or somebody from MHCLG to discuss our desire to have a strategic place partnership?
Angela Rayner
They may be small in number but they are definitely mighty—that is my observation about my hon. Friend and his Cornish colleagues. I will absolutely get the Housing Minister to meet him to see what more we could do. I know that my hon. Friend and his colleagues have raised concerns about the devolution agenda and how to ensure there is devolution for Cornwall and that it fits with them. I will make sure he gets a meeting with the relevant Minister.
Bradley Thomas (Bromsgrove) (Con)
The Government appear to be very inconsistent in their approach to local government reorganisation. Worcestershire is being split into two, Gloucestershire is being kept whole and the boundary of Leicester city council is expanding outwards into the surrounding areas. Can the Secretary of State rule out further expansion of Birmingham city council into the surrounding areas, including Worcestershire?
Angela Rayner
In response to an earlier question on local government reorganisation, I said that my principle is that it should benefit the people and the services of the local area. I do not want to comment on specific local areas at the moment—I need to look at that—but the principle should be to ensure that this is not done to people and that local leaders are part of the process. This is about making sure that services deliver for the people in their local area.
Leigh Ingham (Stafford) (Lab)
I welcome the Secretary of State back to her place. I agree with her comment that the situation we are facing on high streets is not something we have created recently, but has been inherited after years of austerity. Particularly in Stafford, we welcome many of the high street initiatives taking place such as on vape shops and—this is a bit of a throwback one—the high street rental auctions, which are great. Could I have a meeting with her, because my local authority is really keen to pursue this, but with LGR going through and some stretched personnel situations with LGR and previously with austerity, it is finding the administration of this a little overwhelming? It would be great if we could get this in Stafford, perhaps with a little bit more support for such councils.
Angela Rayner
I commend my hon. Friend for her work in representing those in Stafford, and I appreciate that there is a lot going on at the moment. I really want her to be involved in the high streets strategy that we are bringing forward, and I will make sure that my Department is in contact with her so that she is fully engaged, and her local area can play a full role in shaping the future and is heavily involved in the process.
Steve Darling (Torbay) (LD)
The Secretary of State is quite right to highlight the link between mental health illness and street homelessness. Sadly, over the 30 years I have served the people of Torbay, I have seen it quadruple, and it feels to me that street homeless people are just the tip of the iceberg in relation to the homelessness we see in our communities. Will she give me some assurance that in a community such mine in Torbay, where social rented housing is at only 7% compared with the national average of 18%, will be targeted with additional support for additional affordable and social rented housing?
Angela Rayner
I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising this issue. He is a champion in knowing and recognising the challenges that his local area faces. We announced £442 million of support for tackling rough sleeping this winter, and that is based on a formula that recognises the challenges that local areas face. I will get my Department to contact him so that he can understand the effect of that, and he can shape what comes forward in his area. He is absolutely right to recognise that the programme has to have settled accommodation as well as intensive wraparound support to help people leave rough sleeping behind. We have to learn the lessons of what happened in Greater Manchester and how it was able to achieve great outcomes for people. As I mentioned in my statement, when I have met people whose lives have been transformed by it, I can understand why the Prime Minister says he wants us to make sure this happens nationally.
Andrew Pakes (Peterborough) (Lab/Co-op)
One of the most inspiring housing projects I have ever seen is Coin Street, a housing and worker co-operative a few moments’ walk from this House on the banks of the thriving Thames in London. It does not just build houses; it builds homes and communities and gives pride back to working people in the heart of London. The same spirit of pride runs through the Pride in Place funding that Peterborough has received and the ambitions of this Government with devolution. Can my right hon. Friend put on record her support for the co-operative and mutual ideals as part of our devolution agenda, and as part of our mission to rebuild communities in our country?
Angela Rayner
I thank my hon. Friend for recognising some of the fantastic work being done by the co-operative movement. Is our Prime Minister the first ever Labour and Co-operative Prime Minister? I do not want to mislead the House, Madam Deputy Speaker, but I think he might be—he is definitely a Labour and Co-operative Prime Minister and I think he is the first. Coin Street is the type of development that can happen when homes are built with a sense of community. Our Pride in Place work is about rejuvenating our local areas. In Tameside, in my local area, I have seen people going through difficult times. There have been some difficult times for our nation and our country recently, whether because of the covid pandemic, the austerity years or what has been happening locally, but people have come together. Pride in Place has allowed us to look not just at how we can stop the flow of some of the challenges, but at how we can work together as a community to tackle them together, and I am incredibly proud of that work.
Alison Hume (Scarborough and Whitby) (Lab)
May I welcome the Government’s decisive action over the summer to tackle wildfires, particularly by placing a temporary ban on disposable barbecues? Last year a huge wildfire caused massive damage to the North York moors near Whitby. The farming community played a vital role in supporting firefighters, but they are still out of pocket over a year later, having suffered significant losses. Will my right hon. Friend look at introducing grant schemes to help those affected by wildfires, similar to the ones available for major flooding events?
Angela Rayner
I am sorry to hear about the situation in the North York moors and the circumstances surrounding the funding package. We are working closely with fire and rescue services to ensure that support is targeted at those facing the greatest operational pressures, and we will set out further details in due course. The current focus is about ensuring that the support reaches the areas that need it most urgently, but I will take back what my hon. Friend says. As I said, the Prime Minister is looking forward to the wildfire summit this autumn, so hopefully we can make progress there.
Antonia Bance (Tipton and Wednesbury) (Lab)
Isn’t it great to see our right hon. Friend back in her place? It was also great to see the first allocations of the social and affordable housing programme last month, and we desperately need our share in Tipton, Wednesbury and Coseley, including at the Friar Park development of 650 new homes. Will she support the campaign that I have been running with our West Midlands Mayor to get Sandwell council and Homes England to help local people, who have been stuck on waiting lists for years, by raising the proportion of social housing in the Friar Park development to 50%?
Angela Rayner
I would not want be on the wrong side of a campaign led by my formidable hon. Friend. She is a formidable campaigner, so I reckon she has got all power to her elbow. Having the West Midlands Mayor on side makes me confident that their campaign will come through. She is right to raise not only the social and affordable homes programme and the announcement of the £10 billion in funding, but the work that we are doing on mayoral planning and housing devolution. That will give more power to their elbow and I am confident that they will win through.
Peter Swallow (Bracknell) (Lab)
I welcome the £39 billion of investment in the social and affordable homes programme that this Government are making, but my right hon. Friend will know that for every social home we build, when a social housing provider disposes of another home, not only are we losing a valuable home that could support residents in Bracknell Forest and across the country, but we also need to replace that home. That is why I am calling on the Government to go further than currently envisaged in the Social Housing Bill to clamp down on disposals. Will she continue to look at that with the Housing Minister, so that we can do everything we can to protect the social homes we already have as well as building more?
Angela Rayner
May I put on record my thanks to Ministers, including the Housing Minister, who during my time of absence have seen the Social Housing Bill go through this place and the other place? Measures have been strengthened significantly and we will start to see, for the first time, that more council housing is being built than being lost. That is welcome—it has not happened for a long time. I am sure that the Housing Minister has heard everything my hon. Friend raised, but I know that is his intention and it is definitely mine.
Sporting Events Bill [Lords]
(1 day, 7 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (Lisa Nandy)
I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
Just over 14 years ago, we lifted the curtain on the opening ceremony of the London 2012 Olympic games. It did not disappoint: 29 gold medals, super Saturday, Usain Bolt winning medal after medal—sporting moments that will remain with us for the rest of our lives. But London 2012 did more than that. It told our national story on the world stage, and it sent a clear message to future British athletes that there should be no ceiling to their ambition.
Fourteen years on from London 2012, I still meet athletes who talk about that moment as the moment that changed their lives forever: when they were inspired, when they saw something, and when they thought, “I can do that.” That is why major events matter. They bring world-leading athletes and competitors to our shores. They show children across the country where ambition and talent can lead them. Perhaps not all of those children will go on to be the Mo Farahs and Jess Ennises of their generation, but they will, because of the power of sport, go on to live richer, larger lives.
If done right, these events leave lasting legacies, they help to fund grassroots projects and they break down the barriers to opportunity, and we should not be shy about saying that here in the UK, we are really, really good at delivering them. From the women’s rugby world cup, to the Commonwealth games in Glasgow, to the European athletics championships in Birmingham, time and again we have welcomed the best of the best and put on an incredible show.
Our Government are not going to stop there. Over the next few years, we will host the 2028 Euros and the Tour de France grand départ, but I want us to go further, I want us to be bolder and I want us to be bigger. I want us to harness the power of major events, to build social cohesion, bring people together, spread opportunity and deliver long-lasting change to communities whose contribution has not been seen or valued for far too long.
Alongside our bid for the FIFA 2035 women’s world cup, I am delighted that we have submitted a bid to host the world athletics championships in 2029. We are also clear that this Government would love to see the Ryder cup return to the UK, and we are continuing to explore at pace a bid for an Olympic and Paralympic games in the north of England for the first time.
James Naish (Rushcliffe) (Lab)
I am the MP for Rushcliffe, where we have Nottingham Forest’s City Ground and Trent Bridge, the world-renowned cricket venue. We also have the National Water Sports Centre, which is one of three locations in England with a 2 km rowing lake, but it has lacked investment over many years. For us to be able to bid for a northern Olympics, we are likely to need that type of venue to be within our collective offer, so will the Secretary of State meet me and the Mayor of the East Midlands, Claire Ward, to look at the investment that needs to go into that site via UK Sport?
Lisa Nandy
I would be very happy to offer my hon. Friend a meeting with the relevant Minister and officials to discuss that specific site. He is absolutely right to say this is precisely the reason that this Government believe in major events: because of the lasting legacy they have for our country and our communities. As we go on to explore the Olympic bid in the north of England, we are really clear that with that has to come the world-class infrastructure that we deserve, which includes not just sporting infrastructure but transport infrastructure as well.
If we are successful in our bids to host those events, I give my commitment that we will use every one of them to their full potential, not just to drive growth but to deliver change and to enrich people’s lives. We will learn from exceptional mayors like Steve Rotheram, who has not only launched a major events strategy to showcase Liverpool, but is deliberately anchoring major events and urban regeneration in some of the historically most deprived neighbourhoods in his city region.
I want major events not only to inspire and light up the world but to be a powerful lever for change in areas that have been neglected for far too long. But to do that, we need to ensure that we are in the best possible position to tap into the opportunities that exist, and that is what the Bill is for and what it will achieve. The Bill will provide a framework for delivering major events, sending a clear message to event organisers across the world that the UK is serious about being a world leader in major sporting events.
As well as providing important commercial protections, the Bill will tackle ticket touting for qualifying events, complementing the Government’s broader legislation on secondary ticketing. For too long, fans have been locked out, priced out and ripped off. Under the provisions set out in the Bill, event organisers will maintain control of ticket distribution, helping more people to access tickets at face value, and protect against price gouging, which has harmed sporting events for too long.
Jim Dickson (Dartford) (Lab)
I thank the Secretary of State for the points she is making about ticket touting. I have the good fortune this Saturday to be travelling with the Crystal Palace faithful to Craven Cottage in search of our first three points of the season. I paid £30 for my ticket—as a Crystal Palace season ticket holder; even a cursory glance on the internet shows me that the equivalent tickets are on sale for £130, £140 and £150. It is totally wrong that this practice continues; is it not right that the Government are seeking to tackle and clamp down on the issue?
Lisa Nandy
This is a matter that commands support across the whole House. I think we all believe that these events—whether football or live music—belong to the fans, and that it is completely unacceptable that touting has been allowed to happen in plain sight for too long. Let me take a moment to reassure the House on this point. Members will know that the Government introduced draft legislation in this session; we did so to ensure that the legislation was watertight, robust and would work, and that it was subject to the full scrutiny of both Houses. We do not intend to delay that legislation. The Prime Minister feels particularly passionate about this issue, and we will give the legislation the priority it deserves.
Pete Wishart (Perth and Kinross-shire) (SNP)
It is great that sport is going to be protected from the ticket touts, but as the Secretary of State said, all that music and live entertainment is getting is a draft Bill, which seems very much like a delaying tactic—putting it in the long grass. Will she give a guarantee that we will see that Bill, and that it will be introduced over this next Session of Parliament?
Lisa Nandy
It is my intention that we introduce the Bill as soon as possible, and we may be in a position to do better than the hon. Gentleman suggests. I will update the House shortly, but I have heard the strength of feeling on all sides of the House about this issue and I share it. The Government intend to treat this piece of legislation as a priority to ensure that we get it on to the statute book without delay.
Peter Swallow (Bracknell) (Lab)
The Secretary of State is being incredibly generous in giving way. She is right to pay tribute to the spirit of the 2012 Olympic games. I was a teenager at the time, I am afraid to say, and it changed my life; being able to go to some of those events was transformative. It did not turn me into a world-class athlete, it has to be said, but it nevertheless gave me a sense of pride in my country.
I share the Secretary of State’s ambition for us to bid for future events—hopefully future football world cups as well as future Olympics. However, the Secretary of State will also know that many were concerned by some of the scenes at the world cup this summer—not on the pitch, but in relation to ticket sales and the high price of tickets. Can she assure the House that, if this Government bid for events, we will always prioritise making them as accessible as possible as part of those bids?
Lisa Nandy
I hope I can reassure my hon. Friend on that. We have the immense privilege of hosting the Euros in 2028, and I have been pleased to work alongside the various sporting bodies, which have given an assurance that they will not be using dynamic ticket pricing for that event. We will always do everything we can to ensure that football remains for its fans. He will know that one of the first things the Minister for Sport and I did was to introduce the Football Governance Act 2025 in order to protect football clubs from owners who prey on them. We will not hesitate to pull every lever we can to put fans first. I thank my hon. Friend for his advocacy on behalf of fans in his constituency; they will really appreciate it.
This Bill will also introduce provision to manage transport and traffic in relation to a sporting event in England, as well as bespoke funding powers for events in either England, Scotland or Northern Ireland. That will remove the current piecemeal reliance on powers from across multiple other Acts and enable us to fund related activities beyond the sporting event itself.
Finally, I want to touch on the issue of including domestic events in the Bill’s provisions—a concern regularly raised in the other place. I reassure the House that we have heard those concerns loud and clear. We recognise that there is a real opportunity here for some of our incredible domestic events. We will therefore seek to address that issue throughout the passage of the Bill, and I look forward to working with Members from across the House to achieve that.
The Bill is a clear signal that this Government are serious about major events and about harnessing the power of sport and culture to change our country, and the lives of the people in it, for the better. Driven by a new enhanced Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport, Britain will rebuild its sense of self-confidence and go out to deliver extraordinary major sporting events that light up not just our towns, villages and cites, but the world. This Bill is about ensuring that we are ready for those global moments, and that when the world comes calling, this country will stand ready. For that reason, I commend it to the House.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
I call the shadow Secretary of State.
Rebecca Paul (Reigate) (Con)
Sport occupies a special place in this country. We all know the power that it has to bring communities together, inspire millions of people to take part, and provide some of those increasingly rare occasions when the whole country seems to stop and watch the same thing. Britain can also take enormous pride in its place in the sporting world. There is no doubt that we excel across the board, and the patriotism that such events can generate is truly wonderful.
We are home to Wimbledon, the Open, the British Grand Prix and the London marathon. We have successfully hosted Olympic and Paralympic games, Commonwealth games, world cups and European championships—and we do it exceptionally well. Those events are part of our national culture. They create memories that last for generations, inspire children to pick up a racket, a football or a pair of running shoes, and showcase the very best of Britain to audiences around the world.
By way of example, take the London Olympics and Paralympics, which the Secretary of State has just mentioned—we obviously share some similar memories. I think it is fair to say that, before it started, there was a bit of grumbling about the disruption, cost, impact and even the logo, as some Members may remember. But once it started, the overwhelming pride that we all felt in our home nation, our capital and our sportsmen and women was something that I am sure none of us will forget. It was a truly momentous, once-in-a-lifetime event that made me so proud to be British. Those of us—including me—who worked in London at that time, certainly enjoyed the instruction to try to work at home during that busy period.
These big sporting events are not only sources of pride and joy for millions. Taken as a whole, sport is also a roaring economic engine. The Government’s latest estimates suggest that the wider sport sector directly contributed £63.2 billion to the UK economy in 2024 and accounted for 1.3 million jobs.
Major sporting events alone can generate considerable returns for our country. In 2023, investment of £10.8 million from UK Sport and Government supported 16 major sporting events, which generated an estimated £373 million for our economy. The Birmingham Commonwealth games is a particularly striking example, with research finding that the games contributed almost £1.2 billion to the overall UK economy, as well as nearly £80 million in social value.
Those are very substantial numbers. They represent money being spent in hotels, restaurants and pubs, business for suppliers, employment in event management, broadcasting and security, and visitors coming to parts of the country they might otherwise never have visited.
Sarah Bool (South Northamptonshire) (Con)
I welcome the shadow Secretary of State to her place. I refer to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. On the point about economic benefit, I am the Member of Parliament for Silverstone, and the grand prix has given a huge boost to the economy in our area; it is vital part of our economy, but it is on the annual calendar only because of the hard work of the team to keep it there; there is no guarantee that we will have it every year. I very much welcome the Secretary of State’s looking at widening the definition of “major events” to capture Silverstone, because it is so valuable to our sporting calendar; it is absolutely vital.
Rebecca Paul
I thank my hon. Friend for making that point. She is passionate about Silverstone, and she is absolutely right in all the points she makes. We must never be complacent about it; we must strengthen and build on all the great sporting events that we have in this country.
Sport also strengthens Britain’s reputation overseas. Few countries combine our extraordinary sporting heritage, wonderful venues, broadcasting expertise, enthusiastic crowds and experience of putting on major events that the whole world wants to see. It is therefore very much in our national interest to ensure that the United Kingdom remains one of the best places in the world to host these big events.
That is the context in which the Opposition approach the Bill. We support its underlying objective and will support its Second Reading. It absolutely makes sense, and it is in this country’s interests, to create a standing legislative framework of this kind.
When the United Kingdom bids to host a major international sporting event, the governing body will commonly require host country guarantees covering matters such as ticketing, commercial rights, advertising and transport. Historically, Parliament has often had to legislate specifically for individual events. There is an obvious inefficiency in recreating substantially similar provisions every time Britain secures another major tournament. If we know that certain protections are repeatedly required, it is reasonable to place a common framework on the statute book that can be tailored to the needs of individual events. This should make Britain a more competitive prospective host and give international sporting organisations greater confidence that the protections they require will be available.
That confidence is vital, as international competition to host major sport is fierce. Countries across the world understand the prestige that these events bring, the visitors they attract and the economic activity they generate. We cannot simply assume that Britain will continue to win the rights to host them if we become less accommodating than our competitors. We need to make the strongest possible case for the UK, and part of that is demonstrating that when we make commitments as a host nation, we have the legal framework to deliver them quickly and effectively.
With that objective in mind, there is much in the detail of the Bill’s proposed framework that we support. It is right that organisers should have effective tools to prevent professional ticket touts from exploiting supporters; it is right that genuine sponsors, who may invest very significant sums in making an event possible, should receive reasonable protection against businesses falsely passing themselves off as official partners; and it is plainly sensible to have the capacity to make temporary transport and traffic arrangements when hundreds of thousands of additional spectators may be moving around a city or region.
James Naish
The Secretary of State moved on from this quickly earlier. I wanted to talk specifically about transport arrangements, as in my constituency, we have three international venues in very close proximity, and it can be extremely difficult for the residents who live in that area. Would the shadow Secretary of State agree that it is extremely important that local councils have the power to enforce the transport plans that are put in place, so that the residents in the areas hosting these major sporting events can live alongside those venues?
Rebecca Paul
I thank the hon. Gentleman for making that point. It is really important that we explore this in more detail in Committee. This obviously requires a bit of balance. We need to consider both sides of the matter to get to the right place. This is a great starting position, and hopefully we will have a lot more detailed discussions as the Bill moves through the House, assuming it passes Second Reading, which it looks likely to do.
We are not concerned about the concept of the Bill, and colleagues in the other place approached it in exactly the same spirit: they supported the principle, while working constructively to improve the legislation. I want to acknowledge the important work undertaken in the other place to ensure that the framework is of benefit to not only major one-off international tournaments, but the great recurring sporting events already woven into British national life, which the Culture Secretary mentioned. As originally drafted, the Bill risked producing the rather peculiar result that an international tournament visiting Britain for the first time might qualify for these protections, while Wimbledon, the Open, the London marathon or the British grand prix might not. That was a significant gap, and Opposition peers, including Baroness Evans and Lord Parkinson, worked closely with colleagues across the House, and with the sporting sector, to address it.
The All England Lawn Tennis and Croquet Club, the England and Wales Cricket Board, the Football Association, the London marathon, Silverstone, the R&A, the Rugby Football League, the Rugby Football Union, the Sport and Recreation Alliance and UK Athletics were among those supporting a widening of the framework to include repeat events. These great recurring events are not simply fixtures in our sporting calendar, but strategic national assets. They attract international audiences, support thousands of jobs, generate significant economic value and serve to showcase Britain around the world. We should therefore always seek to maximise the opportunities and returns that they bring.
As originally drafted, the Bill was principally aimed at major one-off or infrequent international events, but amendments made in the Lords widened that framework, so that our great recurring UK sporting events of national or international importance, such as Wimbledon, the Open, the London marathon or the British grand prix, can also ask to benefit from its protections. That does not mean that every protection in the Bill will now automatically apply to every one of those events every year, but where a major recurring event can demonstrate a genuine need for one or more parts of the framework, it can ask the Government to apply them. Ministers must then agree, and any use of the framework will remain subject to parliamentary approval. Baroness Evans put the principle neatly when she described the Lords’ approach as providing opportunity, not obligation. It is a sensible and proportionate approach, and I welcome the assurances that have been given that the final legislation will deliver that objective and allow our great recurring events to benefit from the framework.
I understand that there may be some technical tidying required as the Bill proceeds through this House, and we will engage constructively with the Government on that work to ensure that the Bill does what is intended. The sporting sector has worked hard to secure this change. I was hopeful that the Culture Secretary could reassure the House today that the Government remain committed to delivering it in full and to preserving the substance of what was achieved in the Lords, and I believe we have heard that from her today. I thank her for that.
There are inevitably some further areas that we will want to examine as the Bill enters Committee stage. That is not because we oppose the powers themselves, but because a permanent legislative framework needs to strike the right balance between giving organisers the protections they require and avoiding unnecessary burdens on those affected.
The first such area is the impact on existing businesses. One of the central reasons why we want major sporting events in Britain is the economic activity that they generate. We want visitors filling hotels, restaurants and pubs, we want local businesses benefiting from increased footfall, and we want traders to share in the opportunities created when tens or hundreds of thousands of people arrive in an area. There will plainly be occasions when crowd safety, security or legitimate commercial arrangements mean that some restrictions are necessary, but the Government’s own impact assessment assumes that a substantial proportion of street traders in affected areas may be unable to trade while restrictions operate. Colleagues in the other place pressed Ministers on that point and secured a useful change, requiring existing trading licences to be taken into account. The Government also committed to work with organisers and local authorities to consider alternative arrangements when an existing trader cannot remain in their usual location. In Committee, we will want to ensure that the practical arrangements around notice, authorisations and treatment of existing businesses are fair and proportionate.
The same principle applies to advertising. We support action against genuine ambush marketing. Official sponsors make substantial investments in major sport and are entitled to protection. At the same time, the framework should operate sensibly for existing advertisers and should distinguish between falsely claiming an official association with an event and legitimate commercial activity, such as a company truthfully promoting an athlete whom it genuinely sponsors.
In the Lords, Lord Parkinson of Whitley Bay raised the concerns of the Advertising Association. The Government undertook further engagement with the industry, which we welcome. It would be useful to have an update from the Culture Secretary on how those discussions have progressed. Again, that strikes me as exactly the kind of detailed matter that could be worked through constructively in Committee.
Finally, clause 25 gives the Government a broad standing power to provide financial assistance in connection with sporting events. There is a certain lack of clarity about what the criteria and eligibility for such payments would be. I ask, again, that that be considered further in Committee.
We all want Britain to remain one of the finest places in the world to host major sport. We all want to attract new world cups, European championships and other global events, as that is good for the sporting sector, our economy, the country and our people. We are fortunate that Britain starts from a position of considerable strength, with its world-class venues, experienced organisers, passionate spectators, internationally recognised events and a sporting heritage that few countries can match. Now we must capitalise and further build on those strengths to fully unleash the sector’s potential. The Bill can meaningfully contribute to that.
Our task now is to preserve the improvements made to the Bill in the other place, so that we deliver on the intention of ensuring that our great recurring events are properly covered. The Opposition support the principle of the Bill and the ambition behind it, and we will support its Second Reading while working constructively with the Government to improve and clarify it further as it proceeds through the House.
Jim Dickson (Dartford) (Lab)
Major sporting events are something that we do very well as a country—I think everybody in the House is agreed on that—and making it more straightforward for us to host them is vital. I therefore really welcome the Bill. I need to declare at the outset that I am a member of the England Supporters Travel Club—formerly the England Football Supporters Club—and a season ticket holder at the home of quality football in south London that is Crystal Palace. I, and many of my constituents—a lot of them are Dartford football club supporters, but there are supporters of many other clubs as well—are united in hugely looking forward to Euro 2028 being hosted across England, Scotland, Wales and the Republic of Ireland. Hopefully, home advantage will enable England to go one further than they did in 2024.
Hosting major sporting events like the Euros and the recent women’s rugby world cup and cricket world cup has the potential to inspire the next generation of young athletes. Anything that we can do to increase physical activity across society—most of all in our young people—is important, and supports the efforts of our 10-year plan to create a healthier society.
I am really pleased that sporting legacy and inclusion of our young people in sporting activity is a core part of the Government’s objectives in attracting major sporting events. The nation’s most vivid memories are often sporting ones. I was privileged to be in the stadium when Jess Ennis won her 2012 heptathlon gold, and I was there—apologies to Scottish colleagues—to witness that goal by Paul Gascoigne against the auld enemy in Euro ’96. It is not just about the memories; these events help to illustrate why the UK remains such a well placed country to host international sporting events. We have a range of excellent, large, atmospheric stadiums, a vibrant hospitality sector, and brilliant fans, while also being a transport hub that much of the world can easily travel to.
The British public embrace major sporting events. Take the excellent and record breaking crowds for last year’s women’s rugby world cup as an example. Last month, there was mostly a full stadium for Birmingham’s European athletics championships, mentioned by the Secretary of State. May I give a big shout out to Dartford Harriers’ Emily Newnham for winning a brilliant silver medal in the 400 metres hurdles?
The British public want us to bid for international events. It is wonderful to hear that the Olympics is a target for the Government in the next decade. We should also be targeting another men’s football world cup in the late 2030s or in the 2040s, alongside our bid to host the women’s football world cup. Of course, I hugely welcome London’s bid to bring the world athletics championships back to the UK in 2029.
I pay tribute to the efforts of the England team at the recent world cup tournament in Mexico, the USA and Canada; the team took us as close to repeating the 1966 triumph as we have got in my lifetime. It was a great world cup; however, there is no doubt that many ordinary fans were priced out of attending. As a member of the aforementioned England Supporters Travel Club, I saw the comments on our Facebook page over the summer—many loyal fans simply could not afford to go.
On extortionate ticket prices, ticket touts selling football tickets at inflated prices outside grounds or online remains far too prevalent. Despite the efforts of football clubs—as an example, I can attest to what Crystal Palace has been doing, ensuring that any spare tickets can be bought only by club members—tickets for just about any premier league match can still be found at an inflated price on StubHub, Viagogo and some other platforms, as well as from illegal touts. We have to address that. I am pleased that the Government are doing that.
It was noticeable that in July it was reported that more than £1.2 million in assets were seized and 432 lifetime bans issued as part of joint work between Liverpool FC and Merseyside police to investigate ticket touting, but a change in the law is still needed. That is why the measures in the Bill are so welcome. It is long overdue that we create a criminal offence for the unauthorised resale of tickets for a sporting event. I hope that we will see more joint working between the police and sports clubs, building on these new powers, to ensure that more tickets are within fans’ reach. I look forward to more major events being held in this country, and more opportunities for us as a country, as these sporting events inspire a new generation.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
Anna Sabine (Frome and East Somerset) (LD)
Trying to speak in Parliament after developing vocal cord paralysis feels like a major sporting event. Let us see how I get on.
In the last 15 years, we have seen four separate acts of Parliament passed to deliver four separate events. Each of those Bills essentially repeated the same core provisions from scratch through bespoke legislation. This Bill is therefore a welcome change that will make it easier for the Government to deliver major events. But, for the Lib Dems, there are a few areas where we think the Bill could be taken further.
First, on the scope of the Bill, I am glad that the Government accepted a Liberal Democrat amendment in the other place so that the legislation now applies to world-famous domestic events that happen every year in the UK, but that was not the only area where the Bill’s scope did not go far enough. The Bill is also limited by applying only to sporting events. Major sporting events bring in hundreds of millions of pounds to the economy, but the music industry is in a different ballpark. In 2024, music contributed a record £8 billion to the UK’s economy, and last year 24.7 million music tourists attended live events. The reality is that music and cultural events are large international events. They face the same issues the sporting events do, but they are not covered by the Bill.
Simply, the problems that the Bill aims to address do not stop with sports. Let us look at Eurovision 2023: a major international event that saw organisers having to improvise ticketing and trading arrangements locally rather than relying on a national framework that would have provided a clear and easy solution to the problems that arise from organising large events. If the Bill’s framework is good enough for sport, why cannot the Government extend it to other music and cultural events?
I hugely welcome the fact that the Bill takes action on the outrageous ticket sales practices that we have seen in recent years, and I understand that the Government promise further ticket touting reforms later—but when the harm is happening now, and we have the legislative architecture available, why are we delaying action? How many people across this House, how many of our constituents, must pay extortionate prices to see their favourite artists and bands before the Government decide that change needs to happen?
It is not only ticket prices that are blocking fans from watching their favourite sports teams, however. For a long time, public service broadcasters pioneered free-to-air coverage, but sporting events that have always been free-to-air are increasingly being locked behind a paywall. Just a few months ago we saw the implications of that, with fans locked out of watching the champions league final.
The Lib Dems support free-to-air sports on all occasions, and especially when events such as those provided for in this Bill are paid for by the public. Currently, the Bill makes no promises that public money means public access to sports on TV. My colleagues in the other place tabled an amendment to make free-to-air coverage a condition of financial assistance through this Bill, and I intend to push for that again.
One final area that I will be pushing on in Committee is grassroots support. Big events should never hollow out local businesses or grassroots sports and culture. The Lib Dems therefore seek clarification from the Government that commercial deals under the frameworks of this Bill will treat small and medium-sized enterprises fairly and ensure that grassroots organisations see a tangible benefit from large sporting events in the UK.
For the Lib Dems, this Bill is not simply about making international events easier to host; it is an opportunity to make them more accessible, more affordable and more enjoyable for the very people who make British sporting and other culture what it is. That is what I will be pushing for as this Bill passes through this House.
Imogen Walker (Hamilton and Clyde Valley) (Lab)
We are a nation of sports fans, and for good reason: from a kickabout in the local park to the great tournaments, getting together to watch or play sport brings joy to millions. When Scotland went to the world cup this summer, football even united the Scottish MPs on the Government side of the Chamber with hon. Members on the Opposition side—and that is quite the achievement.
At home, we were so proud that Lewis Ferguson, from the town of Quarter, a former Hamilton Accies player, was part of the squad. He took our hopes and dreams with him to the States and he did us proud. Evi Mackie, from Lanark, represented Scotland at the Commonwealth games—another local talent to make it to the international stage on the back of her hard work and determination, and with the support of the brilliant Lanark Amateur Swimming Club. Those incredible athletes have not only done Lanark, Hamilton and Scotland proud, but shown the way for the next generation of athletes, who deserve the chance to compete at every level.
The provision in this Bill for the Scottish Government to fund sporting events really matters. Our pride in our nations, our teams and our sportspeople cuts across political boundaries—a power sport has that is rarely seen elsewhere. When the Hamilton Accies ran into difficulties that threatened their very future, the fans made it clear what the club meant to them. One young fan, just 18 years old, wrote to me:
“I was introduced to the club by my father…and I have been forever indebted to him for making me an ‘Accies Man’. He gave me a platform to develop relationships with others, take in live sport, and to help me understand the true meaning of joy when those victories occurred or goals hit the back of the net.
I believe the club has a massively positive impact on the mental health of many people, man and woman, every week. Win, lose or draw, the club gives people a place they can go and get away from the stresses of employment, unemployment, addiction, financial stresses, grief and general loneliness.”
That puts it very well, I think. It was fans like that who came together to show their love for the club, overcame all the odds and, after several months at another ground, brought the Accies home this season to Douglas Park.
Sport is universal and it cuts across divides. Lewis and Evi show that we do not need to be from a big city to reach the top, and that the talent we have in Hamilton and Clyde Valley is world-class. But let me be clear: young people do not train day in, day out to make a profit for ticket touts. They have dedicated their lives to pursuing a dream—a dream that gives people hope, inspiration and something to believe in—not to buy some crook another Merc. This Bill is important, cracking down on ticket touts and building on the UK’s track record of hosting major events, bringing people together and supporting local economies. That is how we will inspire and support the next generation and make sure that their hard work leaves a legacy and keeps dreams alive.
Nigel Huddleston (Droitwich and Evesham) (Con)
I refer hon. Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests.
I have particularly enjoyed today’s reminiscing about London 2012. I remember Super Saturday very well, because I was watching the beach volleyball, which was just up the road, of course, at Horse Guards Parade. I think that was the third time I went to the beach volleyball—for some reason that attracted me quite a lot—and there were a lot of good events going on. Unlike the hon. Member for Bracknell (Peter Swallow), though, I was very much not a teenager at the time.
I will take this opportunity to reiterate something I said this morning by welcoming the shadow Secretary of State to her role. This is an incredibly broad, fascinating, but also daunting brief—I think anybody who has been involved in DCMS recognises that—but she will enjoy it, and I wish her the very best of luck. If there is any way that I can support her, she will always have my support.
I would also like to thank my former team: my hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr French), who is on the Front Bench right now, my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight East (Joe Robertson) and Lord Parkinson. I also thank the broader team, who did such a good job at supporting me and, most importantly, the sectors.
I can see already that there will be a good working relationship between Opposition and Government. In those areas where party politics is not relevant—that is often the case in DCMS matters—that relationship is important. It is not always seen in the Chamber—it is often seen at events or in the corridors—but it is important that there is that dynamic.
I am not going to lay it on too thick, though. I am not going to say that I will ever vote for the Secretary of State or the Minister, but I think that the most important thing to recognise is that Members can be opponents while also being civil to each other, decent and, quite frankly, nice people. People do not always see that in this place. Politics is politics—there will always be areas of disagreement—but a constructive relationship where a constructive relationship is required is vital for British democracy, and long may that continue. I do empathise with the Minister, by the way. I have been there, so I know about the constant disagreements and challenges when it comes to asking the Treasury for money.
Let me stick to the key theme here of co-operation. I support this Bill. The tone today has obviously been one of general co-operation, for the very reasons that many colleagues have already articulated. The UK, rightfully, has a world-renowned global reputation for doing these kinds of international sporting events not only well but superbly well. We are all committed to delivering international sporting events, and we need even more opportunities to do so, because they do create genuine lasting legacies and inspire the next generation of talent. Sport interest, engagement and participation can have a really positive impact on the nation’s wellbeing by inspiring a more active and healthier nation.
It can also lead the way on inclusivity. Think of the amazing achievements in the integrated Commonwealth games, where able-bodied and para-athlete events are held alongside each other. Britain has a proud reputation for not only investing in para-sport and sponsoring para-athletes but broadcasting it on key channels at peak times—something I will come on to again shortly.
Hosting major international sporting events makes huge economic sense for UK plc, as several Members have mentioned today. When done well, they can be profitable, and the multiplier impact on spend, travel, and hospitality venues such as pubs, bars, restaurants and hotels—of course from both domestic and international visitors—can be absolutely huge. We must remember that inbound visitor spend is export revenue. Every year, over a million people come to the UK primarily to watch a premier league game, generating over a billion pounds for the UK economy. That is export revenue, so this Bill is not trivial.
With Government support, we already have major events secured, including the Euros in 2028 as well as the Fifa women’s world cup in 2035. When I say Government support, it is important to recognise that I mean multiple Governments, because the nature of the extraordinarily long bidding process timelines often meant that not only do the Government have to commit to them but the Opposition have to commit to them as well. Those who are holding the events that we are bidding into often want to see cross-party support, because there could be a different Government by the time of the next event. I am certainly hoping that that will be the case.
Nigel Huddleston
Perhaps then we can turn the tables and see Conservatives benefit from Labour’s hard work, rather than the other way around.
James Naish
I must say, I think that was the case with the 2012 games, if I am not mistaken, which were won under a Labour Government but delivered under the hon. Gentleman’s Government.
The point I wanted to make was about the development of a long-term vision. Certainly in Nottingham and Nottinghamshire, we are doing a lot of work on something called the Trent Sports District, which is taking our excellent venues and painting a long-term vision of what they can do for our city and area. That is exactly what he is saying about individual events, so does he agree that using sport as a regeneration and visioning tool is an excellent way to bring everybody together in a cross-party way to secure long-term benefits for an area?
Nigel Huddleston
I do indeed agree with the hon. Gentleman. The other point he makes is that, when we do these events, it is often one individual city or one particular location that gets a lot of the focus. There seems to be a trend at the moment, which I quite like, of having multiple venues and often multiple countries, even when hosting major international events—we saw that this year with the world cup. We have often bid on a four-nations basis, which can be beneficial, and we will continue to do so. That goes back to the point that the economic benefit can be so considerable that it is great if we can spread it outside the M25. It is important that we do that. I do not want to be negative about London—we have amazing sports venues in London—but we always need to think about London-plus, if London is the anchor.
As the former Sport Minister who oversaw the Birmingham 2022 Commonwealth games, I am familiar with, and therefore welcome, many of the framework provisions that go deep into the weeds of event organisation on matters such as ticket sales, unauthorised advertising, brand protection, transport logistics and so on. Previously, they had to be considered in discreet Bills for each and every event, which clearly does not make sense. The basic logic for this Bill is therefore sensible.
Although I am broadly supportive of the Bill, there are some changes that we would like to see, along the lines of what the shadow Secretary of State said earlier. In particular, many in the Lords expressed a concern that the definition of “events” used in the Bill initially seemed to cover way too narrow a group. I therefore appreciate the Secretary of State’s comments. Indeed, I remember us having a conversation about the matter at Silverstone and how there is some logic to including many of the important domestic events.
As the shadow Secretary of State pointed out, that does not necessarily mean everything all the time, but we can pick and choose elements of the Bill. That always causes complexities in such Bills, because it can cause some challenges, so we probably need to build in some flexibility. I am sure that, later on, as we go through the Bill’s stages, we will be able to work that out. There is a clear and strong feeling on behalf of the major domestic sporting events that were mentioned—Wimbledon, the grand prix and so on—that we do right by them and, quite frankly, make it easier for Government in dealing with those things. Again, let us just use a hefty dose of common sense.
There are a couple of other sport-related matters, which I would like to raise, that should be considered in the wider context of the Bill, and I would genuinely appreciate the Minister’s views on those in her closing comments. She will be aware of speculation about allowing alcohol sales at football games. The Conservatives introduced an amendment to the Football Governance Act 2025—I say “the Conservatives”, but it was my hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup, who is sitting on the Front Bench—for a consultation on lifting the alcohol ban in top-tier football. Unfortunately, despite a lot of agreement cross-party, that amendment was shot down by the then Labour Government. Will the Minister now reconsider that, and is the Bill an appropriate vehicle or opportunity for that consideration? For example, would alcohol sales be restricted at some of the events that we talk about in the Bill? Similarly, are the Government reconsidering the 3 pm blackout rule? That is nothing to do with the Bill, but I just wanted to take the opportunity to put the Minister on the spot.
I also want to touch on something that has been mentioned before, which is the listed events regime. Is that being reviewed, particularly in the context of the events being considered in the Bill? If there is Government support for hosting an event and taxpayers’ money is being put into it, there is a reasonable expectation that attendance and viewing of that event should be maximised in-country to maximise the overall benefit and inspiration that these things can provide. Is this therefore a good time to reconsider the listed events regime, particularly for events supported with taxpayers’ money and held in the home nations?
BBC Sport’s fantastic coverage of the Birmingham 2022 Commonwealth games achieved record-breaking audiences on TV, streaming and online. I was fortunate, as the Ministers were, to attend the Glasgow Commonwealth games this year. The city and the organisers put on a fantastic show, particularly given the circumstances of how the games came about, which I think most people are familiar with. It was a deliberately smaller-scale event than the Birmingham games, and although the coverage on TNT Sports and Channel 5 was good, it did not get the breadth of coverage and therefore achieve the level of awareness in-country that we would have had, for example, had the BBC or another major broadcaster secured those rights. That raises questions about what the BBC is bidding for and how much it is bidding. That is definitely a debate for another day, though an important one.
I will end there by confirming that I broadly support the Bill and I certainly look forward to engaging constructively with Ministers as it goes through its remaining stages. I hope we will see some amendments supported by all parties.
Dame Caroline Dinenage (Gosport) (Con)
It is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Droitwich and Evesham (Nigel Huddleston) in welcoming our hon. Friend the Member for Reigate (Rebecca Paul) to her role—I know that she will be excellent. I also want to pay tribute to him as her predecessor. He was an exceptional Minister and shadow Secretary of State. He has always been an exceptional champion for the sectors that DCMS represents, and I know that he will be a formidable and quite terrifying Back Bencher as well, so it was a pleasure to hear from him.
At the risk of universal agreement breaking out from all corners of the room, I too widely support the Bill. Sport is one of our country’s greatest strengths and most successful worldwide exports. Major sporting occasions represent such a huge source of national pride and inspiration, as the Secretary of State said. They are a massive driver of tourism, investment and jobs, and when they are done correctly, their legacy can have tentacles that go on forever. We are world class at delivering them.
We know that British athletes and sportsmen are representing us on the world stage with the most phenomenal success. I was exceptionally proud of the UK deaf athletes who claimed 12 medals, including five gold, at the Tokyo 2025 Deaflympics, despite the fact that they received no public funding. They are elite athletes who make our country very proud. I say this as a gentle reminder to the Minister, given that sports is the theme today, to look again at their eligibility for UK Sport funding.
Our strength is reflected not only in our participation and elite performance, but in our ability to host and showcase some of the world’s most significant sporting events. This small island gave the world some of our best-loved sports—from football to cricket, lawn tennis to boxing, rugby to snooker. We may not always lead the world as we did in those halcyon days of the 1700s, when the small village of Hambledon in Hampshire, known as the cradle of cricket, took on the rest of the world and won, but iconic British fixtures, from the premier league to Wimbledon, the British grand prix to the grand national, are globally synonymous with their sports. They bring people to our shores, generate economic growth, inspire participation and project the United Kingdom’s reputation around the world.
That reputation is under pressure. The gap in soft power between the UK and our competitor nations is closing. Brand Finance has said that the UK has recorded a “sharper-than-average” drop in soft power, and the British Council says that the lead that western nations, including the UK, hold over our competitors is “narrowing”. That is why—I gently say to the Front Bench—it is disappointing that the Government’s action on soft power has failed to keep pace with their rhetoric. I really welcomed the creation of the UK Soft Power Council, but it cannot even claim to be a talking shop when it has met only four times in the last 18 months and the Culture Secretary, whom I admire enormously and who chairs it, has attended only twice. It needs to put together a coherent strategy, and if it did, major events would play a significant role.
Our DCMS Committee will shortly report back on our recent inquiry into major events. The UK’s events sector is an engine for so much growth, but it has received limited attention from the Government until now. They could be doing so much more to unleash its potential and ease some of its constraints, so this Bill is a good place to start to redress that balance. In particular, given that when done well the ratio of investment to return on these kinds of things is so high, it makes sense for the Government to do all they can to attract opportunities to hold all kinds of major events, particularly sporting events.
The Sport and Recreation Alliance told our Committee, as part of our inquiry:
“Dedicated major events legislation would strengthen the UK’s global position as a key destination for major sporting events”,
so I really support the principle of the Bill. Bespoke legislation for individual events creates uncertainty and is unwieldly and impractical. The framework introduced by this new legislation is welcomed by everybody—organisers, rights holders, sponsors and hosts.
Our noble colleagues in the other place made such important improvements by widening the legislation to include other substantial annual events. To be honest, that is something our Committee would have introduced, had it not already been done—I suppose we should not be at all surprised that amendments proposed by the Paralympic medallist Baroness Tanni Grey-Thompson have won that race. As she said, legislation in this area does not come along often, so we must take advantage of the opportunity.
When Parliament has the chance to establish the framework, we should ensure that it is robust enough to support not only the next tournament but the ecosystem that exists all year. The benefits of the Bill in its amended form—creating offences on ticket touting, ambush marketing, and unauthorised trading and association—will be felt not just by the one-off totemic events, but by the stalwarts. That is why I am so grateful to the Secretary of State for her signal today that the Government do not intend to remove the amendments made in the House of Lords.
Throughout our Committee’s inquiry, the evidence we received underlined a few wider concerns. The major events sector does not always feel recognised as a strategic national asset. Particularly organisers outside the world of sport often feel excluded from national planning and policymaking. The flower shows, cultural festivals, music festivals and military tattoos attract tourists, create jobs and bring people together, yet many witnesses told us that they do not feel recognised in the same way as their sporting counterparts. Across the board, the events sector is asking for better co-ordination and the removal of barriers that prevent it from reaching its economic potential. Witness after witness called for better cross-Government working, clearer points of contact, streamlined approvals and a more coherent long-term strategy.
I appreciate that the Bill aims to make the United Kingdom more competitive in winning bids to host international sporting events, but it does not do much to alleviate the concerns that we have heard from other event organisers across the country about things such as the weight of bureaucracy, the cost of policing and the integration of events with transport plans, to name just a few. During the passage of the Bill in the other place, I was grateful to hear that the Government have promised a major events strategy, which we welcome. We hope that the Government will lean heavily on the conclusions and recommendations in our Committee’s report when it is published.
I want to say one final thing about the contribution of business events. They really should not be forgotten. Conferences, exhibitions and trade fairs generate huge economic value for the UK and bring in massive inward investment. More than a million conferences and business meetings take place in the UK every year, generating £33.6 billion for the UK economy. Given its firepower, it is almost laughable that there is not an industrial strategy for the sector alone. The business events sector means business. We will shortly be releasing a stand-alone report on the topic, which I hope the Government are minded to take note of.
In conclusion, this Bill is a welcome step. It has the potential to strengthen the UK’s ability to compete for and host major sporting events. It provides a more consistent framework and reflects the importance of sport to our economies, communities and international standing, but it needs to be the starting point of the conversation. For those reasons, I support the Bill’s objectives, welcome the improvements made in the other place and encourage the Government to see it as the beginning of a wider and more ambitious vision for the future.
Pete Wishart (Perth and Kinross-shire) (SNP)
Without wanting to make this some sort of grand, “Kumbaya” and “let’s all hold hands” moment, I also very much support the Bill. I am pretty certain that the Secretary of State will secure the necessary legislative consent motion from the Scottish Parliament, given the devolved nature of so much of what is included. She will get very few opportunities to have such buy-in from everybody here, so I hope she enjoys that moment. I can say with a great deal of confidence that it will not last all that long.
It is surely in everybody’s interests to create a legislative approach that can better equip the UK to attract and deliver the biggest international sporting events. We are fortunate in the UK because we have a great global reputation for being able to produce those events. We have put on some stunning sporting events throughout the decades, and we will be able to build on that with this legislation. This Bill will hopefully bolster that reputation and ensure that we are one of the top contenders for major international sporting events in the future.
Pete Wishart
The hon. Gentleman just came into the Chamber, but given that we probably have the necessary time, I will give way to him.
Alan Gemmell
It was very nice to hear the hon. Member being so positive about the UK, and I wanted to underscore that. I also wanted to say, as a former diplomat, that it was great to see the role that these events play in our soft power. I wonder if he might comment on how important these events are for Scotland and the whole UK in promoting who we are in the world.
Pete Wishart
Absolutely—I think we all appreciate the efforts that are being made to ensure that all parts of the United Kingdom are promoted adequately. I am sure that, like me, the hon. Gentleman will be watching very carefully to see that Scotland gets promoted in events in the future.
I think it is fair to say that nothing enthuses and unites the whole of the UK more than sporting success and seeing people who are representing our nations become prized athletes winning medals. It was great to see that happening in the last few months in both the European championship and the Commonwealth games. We even got to the world cup this year for the first time in 28 years! The tartan army charmed all of Boston and Miami with its usual antics, which thrilled, excited and impressed so many of our American colleagues. Unfortunately, that did not translate to activities on the football field—I will leave it at that—but it was a huge unifying force. The hon. Member for Hamilton and Clyde Valley (Imogen Walker) is quite right that it united all of us, whatever our political persuasion and whatever side of constitutional debates we are on, in support of our national side.
As the Secretary of State referenced, this year Scotland stepped in at the last moment to host the Commonwealth games in Glasgow. I will not go over the reasons for that, but we should all be grateful that Glasgow did what Glasgow does, which is to step in at the last moment. I think we can safely say that Glasgow rescued the Commonwealth games. I think the model that was adopted in Glasgow for what was described as a more scaled-down version of the games will be the blueprint, and I have heard other nations that are interested in bidding in the future saying that they will look closely at that model. The Commonwealth games were an overwhelming success and perfectly showcased Glasgow, while allowing Scots and those from the rest of the UK to see at first hand a range of sports that caught the imagination, including sports that we might not normally watch, which is only available with the Commonwealth games.
Where Glasgow stepped up to host the games, the BBC most definitely did not. This was the first Commonwealth games in 72 years that the BBC did not fully cover, and that was because it offered what could only be described as a derisory bid for the rights, which it lost to the subscription service TNT. Because that is a subscription service, people had to pay to watch the games, and many sporting fans lost the opportunity to follow the games. That was so bad.
If we contrast that with the European athletics championships only a few weeks later in Birmingham, the BBC appropriately bid, secured the rights and even went as far as to change its week’s scheduling so that people could see the games. In Scotland, we feel that we lost out a little bit there. I hope the Secretary of State will raise that with the BBC, to find out why that was allowed to happen and ensure that it never happens again. Wherever the games are held, the BBC should be covering something as significant and popular as the Commonwealth games.
Although there is no provision in the Bill about broadcasting rights, I support some of the things that have been said about free-to-air coverage of what we call the crown jewels of events. We in Scotland lost free-to-air coverage of the national men’s football team’s games for something like six years—we went without any opportunity to see those games for free, like everybody else across the United Kingdom, which meant that a lot of fans could not follow our national team. That has now been put right, and we were able to see the Scotland games and qualifiers on the BBC, but we have to ensure that everybody has the right to see the national men’s football team qualifying and appearing in major championships.
I want to spend a few minutes focusing on the clauses that relate to ticket touting. For the many of us who care passionately about live music and the whole music fan experience, this Bill feels like a little bit of a disappointment. It is a lost opportunity to ensure that the scourge of ticket touting is tackled right across the sporting and entertainment environment. We are grateful that the Government are tackling ticket touting at sports events, but music fans have been let down by what they see as a lack of action on this issue. Although the Government are prepared to act on behalf of the sports sector, music fans will again have to wait before having their issues properly resolved.
Clauses 5 and 6 are good clauses, and they set out regulations on ticket touting for sporting events. This fast-tracked, heavy-duty legislation goes further than what the live music sector is asking for, as it makes all unauthorised ticket resale a criminal offence for major sporting events, full stop. The Government have rightly recognised the urgency, found parliamentary time and the necessary legislation, and acted decisively to shield sports fans and official sports rights holders—and quite right too, but surely music fans deserve the same attention.
The millions of people who form the backbone of our world-leading £8 billion music industry are to remain exposed to the touts, spivs and profiteers. For music, the Government have offered the promise of a draft ticket tout ban Bill. But let us be clear: until we see the draft Bill and work starts on it, it is pretty much just an aspiration, and it exposes the issue to a host of pre-legislative scrutiny, consultations, delays, and a long and winding road through this House.
I listened carefully to the Secretary of State’s response when I intervened on her, and I think I heard her say that action was going to be imminent, and that we would see something relating to music quickly. I really hope that is the case, because music fans are having to pay through the nose to see their favourite bands, and it is costing something like £145 million a year according to the sector. The UK music industry is asking not for a total ban on resale; it is asking for a resale price cap that prohibits someone from reselling a ticket for more than the original cost, with service fee limits to ensure that the price cap cannot be undermined by inflated fees or hidden charges placed on consumers, and with volume limits to make it unlawful for someone to buy more tickets for an event than one individual is permitted to buy on the primary market.
We have heard the Secretary of State say this before, and the Government roughly support all those endeavours and issues, but now we need to get it done—please. What we have is great for sports—I think everybody welcomes this, and I am sure it will go a long way to ensuring that sports fans are protected—but we need the same type of action and legislation for music fans. I do not want to end on a sour note, although I think the Secretary of State would expect me to say these things to her. I am encouraged by what she has said; as we go forward, let us all work together and get this issue fixed for music too.
Mr Louie French (Old Bexley and Sidcup) (Con)
I refer Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. I also put on record, because the Secretary of State has not, my delight that my old club, the London Broncos, won silverware at the weekend. London beating the north at their own sport—it was a fantastic sight to watch—[Interruption.] The Secretary of State is really enjoying that! But let me start seriously by saying that the Bill is a welcome step in the right direction for major sporting events across the UK. I thank hon. Members from across both Houses for their contributions to the debates on the Bill so far, particularly my hon. Friend the Member for Droitwich and Evesham (Nigel Huddleston) for his fantastic championing of DCMS over many years—I know he will continue to do that—and for putting up with me for the past 12 months.
As we all know, major sporting events make a substantial social and economic contribution to our country and, more often than not, the journey from bidding stage to delivery spans across Governments, so it is vital that we get this right and seek to work constructively wherever possible. It is notable that the turquoise goal hangers have not even turned up for this major debate, despite making references in the press about hosting events in the future—it is not the first time that has happened, Madam Deputy Speaker.
In an increasingly competitive international bidding environment, the Bill should help the UK to attract more events and allow those we already stage to be more successful. I am therefore pleased that the Government have accepted some of the amendments made in the other place, particularly by expanding the scope of the Bill to a wider range of major sporting events, including those taking place on a regular basis. The objective of the Bill should be to streamline the bidding and delivery aspects of hosting major sporting events. That is a principle that we can support, because as Conservatives we believe fundamentally that Britain succeeds when the Government get out of the way. I could provide many sporting examples to highlight that point, but in the interests of time I will highlight just three.
First, although football is not without its issues—we have discussed that on many occasions—our domestic football competitions such as the premier league and the English football league continue to lead the world in attracting investment and fans from across the world. We should never apologise for that success, nor forget why British football continues to deliver billions of inward investment and champion our soft power across the world. The success of football across the UK, but particularly in England, also means that we are well placed for future bids with our stadiums and supporting infrastructure such as training bases. The recent example of the Barcelona men’s team training at St George’s Park highlights again what a fantastic facility it is. It will continue to support new and existing coaches and, I hope, further success on the pitch for England’s national teams.
I would also like to put on record my thanks to our football associations for their ongoing leadership work both at home and overseas in very challenging circumstances, as we have sadly seen again this summer with the ongoing FIFA saga. Such diplomatic skills will continue to be vital for any future bids to host competitions, and I thank officials for their ongoing work.
Secondly, I will briefly mention Formula 1, and the commercial vision and leadership that, like the premier league, continues to put the UK at the top of the international podium. Formula 1’s success embodies the very best of international competition and sports science, creating fantastic jobs and investment across Britain that stretches far beyond the grand prix weekend, as I saw again on a recent visit to the Formula 1 media centre in Biggin Hill.
The third example is the national lottery, one of the greatest Conservative legacies, which has allowed UK Sport, with the support of lottery players, to transform our athletic success across multiple sports. Gone are the days when a more state-controlled approach to sport saw us languish in the middle tables. This is another area where we will seek to continue to work constructively with the Government to ensure that funding for sport is maximised.
From the premier league to Formula 1, the Open, the London marathon, Wimbledon and beyond, our nation’s sporting heritage is rich and continues to lead the world. In fact, I cannot see why events like the British grand prix at Silverstone, the Open or the London marathon were excluded from the remit of the Bill in the first place. These events provide an incredible return on investment for this country, with independent assessments already anticipating that Euro 2028 will generate over £3.2 billion of social economic benefits for the UK and Ireland between 2028 and 2031. That is the equivalent of approximately £5.74 of benefit for every £1 invested.
It is therefore welcome that the Government have accepted the amendments in the other place to allow the benefits of the Bill and the subsequent framework to be extended to events that already benefit this country. However, as the shadow Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Reigate (Rebecca Paul) set out, and many noble Lords made clear throughout the passage of the Bill in the other place, there are still serious questions that need to be addressed on the Government’s approach to major events.
First, why have the Government tabled a Bill to support hosting major sporting events when their own major events strategy, which has been promised, is still unpublished? Does the Minister not see that the Bill should be part of that strategy and that they are at risk of putting the cart before the horse?
Secondly, the Bill fails to address major fiscal and regulatory concerns outlined by organisers of major events. They include proposals by the Home Office to charge for policing services, the implementation of Martyn’s law, increasing employment costs, higher business rates and the Care Quality Commission’s new regulations.
On CQC regulation, I know the sporting events sector has already had discussions with the Department of Health and Social Care and the CQC on an exemption for those who provide medical services for athletes, performers and officials, but, as we have seen for the past two years, Ministers have failed to grasp the nettle and provide urgent clarity to the sector. Will the Secretary of State or the Minister please now make sure that they or their ministerial colleagues provide confirmation and clarity on the introduction of the exemption as soon as possible, so that major sporting events are not negatively delayed or impacted by unintended consequences?
We have also heard from our constituents about the increased costs for businesses under successive Labour Governments. That is no different for those who host major sporting events. The Prime Minister might be able to afford his Everton season ticket, but there are many out there who will no longer be able to afford to watch their beloved teams thanks to the increased costs being piled on to clubs across the country. We have heard already about the impact of changes to events that are televised on national TV for free. This is an ongoing challenge that sports are facing; it is having direct consequences for fans across the country, whether they seek to watch sport in person or at home.
Not only have the Government saddled organisers with more costs in the form of minimum wage increases, national insurance increases, business rates increases and energy costs; now the Home Office is threatening to increase the cost of policing these kinds of events. A joined-up Government approach would see a guarantee that our major sporting events benefit from policing services in the same way as every other sector of the economy, and ensure that they are not forced to pay again for public services that they have already paid for through high levels of taxation. Will the Secretary of State commit to making sure that no extra police charges will be imposed on sporting events, and to making sure that if the Government proceed in this way, an impact assessment of the ability of those events to swallow such costs is published as soon as possible?
More broadly, this Government’s words on sports are not being matched by their actions, as we have seen and heard today. I hope that the new Prime Minister changes direction on this, because we all know that having a good strategy is one thing—and this Bill will make it easier to deliver such events—but the country will miss out if we do not address some of the sporting cuts that have been made over the past two years, particularly at the grassroots. It is future generations that will miss out on being inspired if we do not host such events. Since this Labour Government came in two years ago, they have cut £57 million from the opening school facilities fund, £127 million a year from the primary school PE and sport premium, £35 million from investment in grassroots cricket, £11 million from the multi-sport grassroots facilities programme, and £25 million in real terms from grassroots sports investment, compared with the previous Conservative Government. This is not a good record, and it is our sports and our grassroots facilities that are paying the price.
While in government, the Conservative party invested more than £1.5 billion in grassroots, school and elite sports, including an unprecedented £400 million investment in grassroots sport and £300 million of emergency funding to support community sports clubs and grassroots organisations. Perhaps the programme we Conservatives should be most proud of is the PE and sport premium; introduced to help inspire a generation after the London Olympics, it was worth £600 million between 2023 and 2025 alone, and has totalled almost £3.5 billion, directly for schools, since we introduced it in 2013. This summer of sport was built on the legacy of the 2012 Olympics and Paralympics, the 2014 Glasgow Commonwealth games, the 2015 rugby world cup, the 2019 cricket world cup, the 2020 men’s Euro final and the Birmingham 2022 Commonwealth games, to name just a few of the incredible events that have taken place. However, if the Government continue down this path of not funding sport properly, I am afraid there will be less money for future generations and the future stars we so need. As I have said, I sincerely hope that the Government help this Department to change the direction that we have seen it take over the past two years.
To conclude, this Bill is a welcome move for elite sport and major international events, and we will work constructively to try to improve it as it passes through the Commons. However, this Labour Government must change direction. They must reduce costs for all levels of sport; otherwise, we will lose our seat at the top table of international sport, and the next generation will not benefit from hosting such major, incredible events.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (Stephanie Peacock)
I am grateful to all hon. Members across the House who have contributed to today’s debate, which has shown cross-party recognition of the importance of major sporting events and their ability to showcase the very best of our country. I will speak about the Bill, its importance and its provisions, and will address some of the wider points raised in the debate.
The UK is an undisputed world leader when it comes to hosting major sporting events, and the benefits of these occasions are felt right across the country. We all fondly remember the London 2012 Olympics, as the Secretary of State and many others have said in this debate. Events such as these bring huge benefits and opportunities. The London Olympics and Paralympics brought £14 billion of trade and investment benefit to the UK, alongside the regeneration of 500 acres of east London, and 400,000 Londoners participated in grassroots sports in the three years following the games. In my area of South Yorkshire, the Olympic legacy park in Sheffield is another testament to the transformative power these international events can have. It stands as the only Olympic legacy park in a city that has not hosted the games.
More recently, the 2022 Birmingham Commonwealth games contributed over £1 billion to the UK economy, and events such as the 2025 women’s rugby world cup, the 2026 women’s cricket world cup and the recent outdoor European athletics championships—it was the first time the UK had hosted the championships—have brought, and will bring, their own legacy benefits. Of course, we note the huge success of the Glasgow Commonwealth games, and the fact that Glasgow really stepped up to host those games at the last minute.
Looking ahead, the grand départ of the Tour de France and the Tour de France Femmes in 2027, and a potential world athletics championships in 2029, will inspire the next generation and bring live sport to communities across the country. Indeed, we expect the Tour de France stages to be the most accessible major sporting event Great Britain has ever hosted, bringing £150 million in economic benefits across the country.
This Government are committed to not only hosting major sporting events, but making sure that the benefits are felt far beyond the field of play. As I have said in this House before, inactivity is the story of inequality, and that is why this Government are investing at least £400 million in community sports facilities across the country over the next four years, and it is why we are determined that major events should support greater grassroots participation. I understand the power of sport to inspire in every postcode. That point was made powerfully by my hon. Friends the Members for Hamilton and Clyde Valley (Imogen Walker), and for Dartford (Jim Dickson).
This legislation will strengthen our ability to bid successfully for major sporting events, and it will ensure that we are ready to create more moments like London 2012 or Birmingham 2022. France and Australia already have similar legislative frameworks, and France’s recent success in hosting the Olympic and Paralympic games and the rugby world cup demonstrates the value of having these protections in place. I will briefly run through the Bill’s provisions and how they will be enforced, but before I do, it is worth noting that this legislation is only one component of our broader national ambition.
As I recently announced to the Culture, Media and Sport Committee, we are developing a major event strategy, to be published in the near future. For the first time, we will have a comprehensive strategy that unites sport, culture, arts and business events under a single strategic framework designed to simplify and drive growth. I recognise the points that the Chair of the Select Committee, the hon. Member for Gosport (Dame Caroline Dinenage), has raised, and the work her Committee has done. In particular, I have heard her calls on business events. Since I appeared in front of her Select Committee, I have convened more than one cross-Government meeting, and I am committed to ensuring that the Government do better in this area.
The shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr French), asked why we were, in his words, putting the cart before the horse and not publishing the strategy before this Bill. That is because we have legal deadlines to meet for Euro 2028. If we were not debating this ambitious Bill, we would be debating a Euro 2028 Bill, similar to the one for the Commonwealth games that he took through the House.
Gordon McKee (Glasgow South) (Lab)
I am privileged to represent Hampden Park in Glasgow, which will be one of the stadiums that hosts Euro 2028. It is a huge opportunity, and it attracts investment, as the Minister has said. Does she agree that when we have these major sporting events, it is important that the right legislation is in place for the communities around the stadium, and that the Government work with the council and police to ensure that there is no antisocial behaviour, littering or other disruption to those communities?
Stephanie Peacock
My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and his point goes to the heart of this Bill. The process should be collaborative and should work for local people. That speaks to the point I was going to come on to make, which is that event-specific regulations—they will set out which provisions will be applied to an event, including information such as the time period and how the provisions apply to the local area—will be subject to parliamentary debate and scrutiny through the statutory instrument process.
Moving on to some of the specifics in the Bill, the ticketing provisions are designed to ensure that tickets can be resold only with the authorisation of the event owner or organiser. This measure will clamp down on ticket touts who seek to exploit sports fans and profiteer from major sporting moments. We saw such legislation work effectively at London 2012, and this Bill will make that the baseline for major sporting events. Where needed, local trading standards authorities and the Competition and Markets Authority will be able to enforce the Bill. While it does not prohibit official reselling of tickets at above face value, we will bring in further legislation in this area. The Secretary of State was clear in her remarks about the draft legislation being there so that we can get this right, but she was also clear that the issue should be a high priority for this Session.
The Bill will introduce time-limited restricted zones around competition venues, fan zones and transport hubs to prevent aggressive ambush marketing and unauthorised street trading. Without those protections, the women’s Euros in 2022 faced persistent street trading and unauthorised advertising blimps. In contrast, the Birmingham 2022 Commonwealth games used these powers to swiftly resolve more than 50 advertising and trading infringements, protecting official sponsors and keeping spectator routes safe. The Bill will empower local authorities to undertake enforcement at future events.
The Bill ensures that the interests of those with an existing trading licence are taken into account when a determination is made on an application to trade in a restricted zone, but we are absolutely determined to make sure that the Bill is as strong as possible on protecting small businesses. We will work across the House to make sure that it delivers on that.
The Bill will prohibit unauthorised association. That will prevent businesses from falsely suggesting to the public that they have an official connection with an event in order to gain exposure. Weak controls around unauthorised association make sponsoring an event less appealing and allow businesses to benefit without giving financial support. The Bill sets out controls to prevent that from happening; it gives the power to enforce the provisions to designated enforcers, which are likely to be event owners or organisers. Protections will have been built in to ensure proportionality, and to help ensure that small businesses can once again benefit from major events on their doorstep. It is our intention to make sure that small businesses benefit from major events, and I am very keen to work with Members across the House to deliver this.
Mr French
We are willing to work constructively on this issue. Can we also ensure that there is significant flexibility for events such as Wimbledon, just to name one? A lot of residents who live nearby suffer the parking stress that we heard about from colleagues. During such events, people normally hire out driveways, which helps with parking capacity. Will there be enough flexibility in the legislation to allow that kind of thing to carry on?
Stephanie Peacock
The hon. Gentleman makes a really important and valid point, and I look forward to continuing the conversation with him in Bill Committee, when we can pick up on that point. I will touch on recurrent events in a moment, but first I will touch briefly on transport.
The Bill enables integrated, cross-boundary transport plans and temporary traffic powers in England for local traffic authorities. My hon. Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (James Naish) raised this important point. I assure him that plans will be collaborative, and will have to work with local people. A good example is the games route network used in Birmingham 2022, which ensured that spectators could move safely and efficiently, while minimising disruption to local residents and businesses.
Phil Brickell (Bolton West) (Lab)
The Minister will know that Peel Land is hoping to support a bid for the Ryder cup to come to the Hulton Park site in my Bolton West constituency. I have serious reservations about the infrastructure at that site, and many of my constituents have grave concerns, predominantly about road traffic. In particular, the Westhoughton Chequerbent roundabout is chock-a-block with traffic at all times of the day. Will the Minister meet me to hear our concerns, and make sure that any putative bid at a future date addresses the infrastructure concerns that I raised with the Prime Minister earlier in the year ,when he was in his previous role as Mayor of Greater Manchester?
Stephanie Peacock
My hon. Friend makes a really important point on behalf of the people he represents, and I would be absolutely delighted to meet him to discuss it further.
As the Secretary of State mentioned, we are well aware of the concerns about recurrent domestic events, and we recognise the opportunities available. We will seek to address this issue during the passage of the Bill, and I welcome the comments from those on the Opposition Front Bench. The hon. Member for South Northamptonshire (Sarah Bool) made an important point regarding Silverstone, and I can assure her that both the Secretary of State and I are passionate about it too, having been there with the hon. Member for Droitwich and Evesham (Nigel Huddleston). The shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Reigate (Rebecca Paul), made an important point on this issue too, and I welcome the comments from the shadow Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Weald of Kent (Katie Lam), about working with us on recurrent events. I look forward to doing that in Committee.
I welcome the fact that the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Frome and East Somerset (Anna Sabine), broadly supports the Bill. I appreciate her point about music events, and she asks why they were not included. The Bill was originally designed for biddable events, which is why music events were not included. Indeed, that is why some of the recurrent events were not initially included. However, we have heard the points made in this House and the other place, and we will work with people to get this right.
The whole of the UK stands to benefit from major sporting events, and we are committed to seeing the reward shared across the four nations. From the inception of the Bill, we have worked closely with devolved partners to ensure that it serves the whole Union, and we will continue to work with each devolved Government to ensure that, where appropriate, legislative consent motions are secured.
I would like to cover some of the broader points, which were mainly put to me by the hon. Member for Droitwich and Evesham. I do not want to overstate it, but I pay tribute to him for all the work that he has done, both on the Opposition Front Bench and as a Minister before that. He put various questions to me, and I will touch briefly on some of them. He mentioned the 3 pm blackout, which exists to protect ticket sales for lower leagues in the football pyramid. As a former Minister for Sport, he will know that it is an issue for the Football Association, but we support the current situation, as we recognise the importance of this for the lower leagues. He raised a point about alcohol, and he is absolutely right. We debated this during the passage of the Football Governance Bill, and there are of course different views. The ban was originally introduced to protect fans, but I recognise the debate that is taking place. It is an issue for the Home Office, so I will reflect the points he makes to the relevant Minister.
Both the hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Perth and Kinross-shire (Pete Wishart) mentioned the Commonwealth games coverage. Ultimately, the hon. Member for Droitwich and Evesham will know, as a former Minister, that this was a decision for Commonwealth Sport as the rights holder, and there is a balance between accessibility and commercial considerations. I know he was in attendance at the Commonwealth games, and I think that TNT did a very good job of making it accessible. There was also work on radio, with S4C and the BBC, and free-to-air highlights on Channel 5. However, I do acknowledge the point that the fact the BBC did not cover it means there was not so much wider awareness, but he will appreciate that that issue is independent of Government.
The Chair of the Culture, Media and Sport Committee made a point about deaf athletes and the deaf Olympics. UK Sport has met those involved, as have I as the Minister, and I would like to assure both the Select Committee and the House, as well as anyone watching our proceedings, that we absolutely have not forgotten the issue. I wrote to the Select Committee earlier this year, and this is something that I and the Secretary of State care very much about. I will update both the House and the Select Committee on that issue.
Major sporting events can change lives, transform communities and inspire people to get involved in sport. This Bill will make sure we are ready to secure more of these incredibly important global events and bring their power to communities across the UK. We will champion fans, protect commercial rights and give organisers the reassurance they need to come to our country and cement the UK as a world leader in this space, so I commend this Bill to the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read a Second time.
Sporting Events Bill [Lords] (Programme)
Sporting Events Bill [Lords] (Money)
Redditch Police and Fire Station
(1 day, 7 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate
Chris Bloore (Redditch) (Lab)
I am presenting a petition concerning the West Mercia police and crime commissioner’s decision to spend £20 million of taxpayers’ money on a new police and fire station that, despite that significant investment, has neither a permanent front-counter service nor holding cells. I would like to thank the thousands of residents who have signed this petition, both on paper and online. Their support demonstrates the strength of feeling in our community and sends a clear message that a town the size of Redditch deserves a fit-for-purpose police station.
The petition states:
The petition of residents of the constituency of Redditch,
Declares that the lack of a publicly accessible front desk at Redditch Police and Fire Station prevents members of the community from accessing a vital public service.
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to review the provision of a publicly accessible front desk at Redditch Police and Fire Station to ensure adequate and accessible policing is available to the people of Redditch.
And the petitioners remain, etc.
[P003229]
Large-scale Development Masterplans
(1 day, 7 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Dr Allison Gardner (Stoke-on-Trent South) (Lab)
I am grateful for the opportunity to lead this debate on the role of masterplans in large-scale development. This debate will be of particular importance to many of my constituents in Lightwood and surrounding areas, where some 3,000 homes have been allocated through Stoke-on-Trent’s emerging local plan under site BL1.
I want to begin by making my position clear: I oppose development of this scale in Lightwood. It is the largest single housing allocation in the entire local plan and would, in practice, create a substantial new community on the edge of the city. Like many constituents who have contacted me, I do not believe that the existing infrastructure, public services and transport network can accommodate development of this scale. I have consistently raised objections to the scale of this proposal. However, I recognise the reality that development is likely to proceed, particularly given that elements of the site are under council ownership.
I also believe that the centrally determined housing target for Stoke-on-Trent of 948 homes a year is a little too high, given the site’s tight administrative boundaries and limited land. It is concerning that we have reached the regulation 19 stage of the local plan process without residents having any meaningful detail about how the strategic allocation of 3,000 homes would be delivered. There remains no comprehensive framework setting out infrastructure requirements, no clear understanding of how cumulative impacts will be mitigated and no shared vision about how a development of this scale will integrate with both existing communities and the wider area.
What makes this particularly difficult to understand is that residents elsewhere in Stoke-on-Trent have been afforded precisely that opportunity. The council prepared a masterplan for the strategic site at Packmoor, despite it being around a third of the size of the proposed Lightwood allocation. That process provided a clear vision for the site and enabled residents to engage with the overall shape of development before individual planning applications came forward. By contrast, residents in Lightwood are being asked to comment on a strategic allocation of 3,000 homes without the benefit of a comparable masterplan, and without the same level of consultation on how the site will ultimately be delivered. It is a clear example of inconsistency in the planning process.
Residents should not receive different levels of engagement, transparency and certainty about the future of their communities simply because they happen to live in different postcodes. When a development is large enough to create an entirely new neighbourhood, it should not be allowed to emerge through a series of disconnected planning applications. It should be planned from the outset through a comprehensive masterplan that establishes a clear vision for the area and provides a framework for future development. In Lightwood’s case, the local planning authority should be taking a proactive role in preparing and co-ordinating such a masterplan.
Masterplans are not simply about determining where houses will go. They are about creating successful places and sustainable, accessible communities, both new and existing. They provide the strategic framework that brings together housing, transport, education provision, healthcare capacity, utilities, mains water provided by water companies, environmental enhancement and design principles into a coherent vision for long-term growth. Most importantly, they ensure that supporting infrastructure is planned alongside development, rather than treated as an afterthought once planning applications have already been submitted.
In that regard, masterplans are entirely consistent with the ambitions of the national planning policy framework, which seeks to promote sustainable development, effective placemaking and infrastructure-led growth. While national policy recognises the value of masterplans and design codes, their use remains largely discretionary. The experience of Lightwood and Packmoor demonstrates the inconsistency that can result. That is why I believe there is a strong case for a clearer national requirement that developments above an appropriate scale should be supported by a comprehensive masterplan.
I am not suggesting that every housing development requires such a masterplan. A scheme involving a few dozen homes is clearly different from a strategic allocation comprising thousands of properties. However, where development may be delivered over many years, involve multiple landowners or developers, and have substantial implications for infrastructure and existing communities, the case for master planning becomes clear. In such circumstances, a comprehensive masterplan should be established before individual planning applications are determined.
Without a clear overarching framework, there is a real risk of piecemeal development. Individual planning applications may appear acceptable in isolation, but collectively they can create unintended consequences for transport networks, public services, drainage systems and environmental assets. Opportunities for integrated transport links, co-ordinated infrastructure and high-quality placemaking can easily be lost when development comes forward parcel by parcel.
A masterplan provides the framework that ensures every proposal contributes to an agreed vision for the site. It should establish how movement through the site will work, where community facilities will be located, how public transport will be integrated, where drainage infrastructure will be provided, and how development will connect with surrounding neighbourhoods. It should also identify how environmental assets will be protected, enhanced and connected across the site as a whole. That brings me to a particularly important issue: green infrastructure.
Green space is often treated as a residual element of development, fitted into whatever land remains after housing numbers have been maximised. A proper masterplan takes the opposite approach; it recognises that accessible green spaces, recreation areas, tree planting and biodiversity corridors are fundamental components of healthy communities. They contribute to physical and mental wellbeing, create opportunities for recreation and social interaction, improve climate resilience and flood mitigation, and help maintain a connection between communities and the natural environment. Green infrastructure cannot be viewed as an optional extra; it is essential and ensures that growth enhances rather than diminishes the places people call home.
Infrastructure planning is equally important. Questions about road capacity, public transport provision, walking and cycling routes, school places, healthcare services, utilities and drainage cannot sensibly be addressed on an application-by-application basis. They must be considered collectively, and in the context of both future residents and the communities that already exist around the development.
That is particularly important in relation to mains and water infrastructure. I remain concerned that the mains water companies do not upgrade their systems to match the new developments. My village of Upper Tean has frequently had that problem. The developers meet their requirements on mains water, sewage and flood mitigations, but when something hits the mains systems, we get manhole covers blowing out and flooding happening all over. People’s homes get flooded, as well as businesses and play areas, with the ensuing environmental problems.
A masterplan should also ensure, if we are serious about creating inclusive communities, the development of accessible homes and communities, including bungalows, so that they meet the needs of those who are ageing and have disabilities or are frail. The English homes study found that 91% of homes do not meet the necessary requirements for wheelchair users to visit, let alone live in them. Data by Habinteg Housing Association, which provides thousands of accessible social homes across the country, shows that wheelchair users could wait up to 47 years for a suitable accessible property to become available.
Masterplans can be a valuable way of ensuring that future housing developments meet existing local housing needs, including the estimated 20,000 wheelchair users nationally on local authority housing waiting lists. Currently, fewer than 2% of newbuild homes are bungalows, meaning that most are not fully accessible.
Sites such as Lightwood are not a blank canvas. People already live there. They rely on local roads, footpaths, public transport, schools, healthcare services and community facilities. As we work to deliver the homes that this country needs, we must make full use of the planning tools available to ensure those homes become successful communities, accessible to all. I ask the Minister to consider strengthening national planning policy, so that large-scale developments, above an appropriate threshold that can be discussed, are required to have a comprehensive masterplan in place before individual planning applications are brought forward.
The Minister for Housing and Planning (Matthew Pennycook)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent South (Dr Gardner) on securing this important debate. I commend her for the compelling argument she makes about the importance of planning effectively for large-scale residential developments to ensure that they are well-connected, well-designed, sustainable and attractive places where people want to live, with all the infrastructure, amenities and services needed to sustain thriving communities.
While I note my hon. Friend’s comments, both today and previously, in respect of the BL1 green-belt site in Lightwood that is identified in the draft local plan, I know she is cognisant of the fact that I cannot comment on specific local plans, sites or planning applications, due to the quasi-judicial nature of the planning process, but I will make some general points that I hope will be of use.
I start with plan making. The plan-led approach is, and must remain, the cornerstone of our planning system. The benefits of an up-to-date local plan are significant and well known across the Chamber. Local plans are the best way for communities to shape decisions about how to deliver the housing and wider development that areas need. They enable local areas to set the strategy for future growth and the approach to protecting and enhancing the environment, and they provide the certainty and confidence required to bring development forward across the country.
In the absence of an up-to-date local plan, there is a high likelihood that development will come forward on a piecemeal and speculative basis, as my hon. Friend mentioned, with reduced public engagement and fewer guarantees that it will make the most of an area’s potential. That is why the Government remain determined to drive local plans to adoption as quickly as possible in order to achieve our ambition of universal plan coverage and to ensure that plans contribute positively to increasing rates of house building and infrastructure delivery.
My hon. Friend will know that the emerging Stoke-on-Trent city council local plan is undergoing the regulation 19 consultation, and I encourage her and her constituents to engage meaningfully with that process, if they have not already done so, to ensure that any specific concerns are understood by the authority even at this advanced stage. Anyone who has submitted a representation during the consultation on the draft plan may make a request to be heard by the inspector during the examination.
Once submitted for examination, it will be for the independent inspector to examine the plan and the proposed site allocations to ensure that they are legally compliant and sound. Of course, it is for the inspector to ensure that the plan is in conformity with national policy, which has always been clear that local plans should identify the infrastructure necessary to support the delivery of the local plan, providing certainty and better outcomes for communities, businesses and developers.
I want briefly to mention the interaction between design guides, codes and masterplans and local plans. My hon. Friend is absolutely right that local planning authorities can identify and prioritise where design guides, codes and masterplans are produced and can make provision for their adoption as supplementary plans. There is no requirement for them to be adopted as part of the development plan, but where they are incorporated into development plans, they are afforded more weight on that basis.
It is important that for those key sites where a local authority wants to see a masterplan in place, they are incorporated into plans. They can also be produced as part of the development management process to support the delivery of larger site allocations. In the new national planning policy framework that we published on 17 August, we included new policy—policy L1, for those who are interested—which encourages the use of masterplans, where appropriate, to optimise the use of site allocations. We included this in response to consultation feedback.
My hon. Friend made a number of specific points in the context of her concerns about the BL1 site about large-scale residential development and the importance of master planning to ensure the best outcomes for communities, and I very much agree with her about the benefits. Delivering at scale does provide opportunities for comprehensive development where homes, infrastructure, green space and community facilities can be planned together from the outset. National planning policy has long required local plans to take this joined-up approach, including by setting out the infrastructure needed to support growth and clear expectations for the quality of places to be created. That includes using design tools such as masterplans and design codes where they are needed.
In response to the specific points my hon. Friend raised, the new NPPF that we published on 17 August has strengthened national planning policy in this area for future plans and sites, including by introducing a definition of what is called a strategic site—a site of at least 1,500 dwellings, most often to be delivered in multiple phases, and that has significant infrastructure requirements. Through that NPPF, we have set clear expectations that such development should come forward in suitable locations, be supported by necessary infrastructure and facilities, address strategic environmental opportunities and—I quote from the glossary—“require a masterplan.” Going forward, we require a masterplan for any strategic site of over 1,500 units to be taken forward. To my hon. Friend’s point on accessibility, the new NPPF also strengthens expectations for a mix of homes and tenures on strategic sites.
While it will principally shape future plan making and future site allocations, it does, I hope, demonstrate this Government’s direction of travel, ensuring that large-scale developments are planned comprehensively, supported by timely infrastructure and capable of being well-designed, sustainable places even where a stand-alone masterplan is not in place. However, I understand my hon. Friend’s concerns in the context of her draft local plan being assessed under the old framework, not the new one.
I want to touch briefly on design and infrastructure. I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend about the importance of providing a long-term vision to guide the delivery of well-designed, large-scale development. Again, national planning policy is clear that local authorities should identify in their development plans where masterplans are necessary to achieve positive design outcomes and that they should use masterplans, where appropriate, to optimise the use of both allocated sites and smaller windfall sites. It also requires that masterplans reflect a clear understanding of local character and the wider context of an area, and should be informed by effective community engagement.
We are not complacent; we want to build on what is already in place. Our draft planning practice guidance on design and placemaking, which we consulted on between January and March this year, will go even further to support local authorities to prepare effective masterplans in collaboration with communities and key stakeholders.
A chief concern that my hon. Friend raised was infrastructure, the provision of which, as she made clear, communities across the country rightly expect to be delivered alongside development, rather than being an afterthought. We have been clear that while we need to build many more homes, they need to be supported by the right infrastructure to ensure that we are creating functioning places where people want to live and work.
The new NPPF has strengthened existing national policy to ensure that developers and local plans deliver much needed affordable homes and the infrastructure required to support new development such as schools and GP surgeries. Through the new NPPF, we have placed a greater emphasis on up-front clarity on expected developer contributions, reducing the risk of lengthy negotiations and again providing greater certainty for communities.
More widely, our new NPPF supports the provision of new community facilities and public service infrastructure, particularly where new development would have a significant impact on the number of people needing to use those services. The NPPF is also clear that, in planning for new community facilities and public service infrastructure, authorities should engage proactively with local communities and the relevant service providers, taking into account relevant strategies to improve health, address inequalities and foster social and cultural wellbeing for all sections of the community.
At the same time, the Government are backing delivery centrally with the launch of a new national housing delivery fund. That includes about £5 billion of capital grant funding to address viability challenges across the country, including through remediation of brownfield sites and the provision of unlocking infrastructure. The fund is designed to deliver a range of interventions, including large strategic schemes as well as faster, smaller sites and viability gap projects. Its aim is to accelerate housing delivery, increase supply and support our ambition to build 1.5 million new homes in this Parliament. It sits alongside the £16 billion of financial capacity that we have available to us through our national housing bank.
On landscapes and green places, again, it is important for me to say to my hon. Friend that the NPPF highlights the importance of conserving and enhancing landscape character, the natural beauty of the countryside and higher quality agricultural land. Local plans may designate land as local green space where that would safeguard green areas of particular value to the local community. We have also introduced a new requirement for plans to set standards for green infrastructure, defined as a multi-functional network of green and blue spaces.
The Government are obviously also committed to the ongoing protection of England’s green belts, which have served England’s towns and cities well over many decades. We have not shied away, however, from the fact that we do need to take forward a more strategic, targeted approach to green-belt land designation and release where that is necessary; but when local authorities have to release green belt under exceptional circumstances, we expect them to prioritise previously developed and lower-quality grey-belt land within the green belt.
I am extremely grateful to my hon. Friend for securing the debate and bringing this important issue to the House’s attention. I am passionate about well-designed masterplans, which can really reduce opposition to development by convincing people that the development coming forward is infrastructure-led, well designed and sustainable. The Government are committed to delivering the right homes that people need while ensuring that development is supported by the appropriate infrastructure, working in tandem with local areas. We have, as I set out today, taken bold steps to reform the planning system and to drive wider changes across the housing market to improve supply, quality and fairness. I look forward to working closely with colleagues to build a housing system that is both fair and sustainable, and to drive up the quality and indeed coverage of masterplans, particularly on strategic sites across the country.
Question put and agreed to.
Petition
Hundredstone Post Office
Westminster Hall
(1 day, 7 hours ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
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
Children in the Social Care System: England
(1 day, 7 hours ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
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
Paula Barker (in the Chair)
We begin with the Select Committee statement. Peter Swallow will speak on the publication of the second report of the Joint Committee on Human Rights, “Human Rights of Children in the Social Care System in England”, HC 161, for up to 10 minutes, during which no interventions may be taken. At the conclusion of Peter Swallow’s statement, I will call Members to put questions on the subject of the statement, and call Peter Swallow to respond to them in turn. Questions should be brief and Members may ask only one question each. I call Peter Swallow on behalf of the Joint Committee on Human Rights.
Peter Swallow (Bracknell) (Lab)
Thank you, Mrs Barker; it is an honour to serve with you in the Chair.
I thank the Backbench Business Committee for granting the time for this statement, and my fellow members of the Joint Committee on Human Rights for asking me to make it. I am also grateful to the Under-Secretary of State for Education, my hon. Friend the Member for Whitehaven and Workington (Josh MacAlister), for his attendance. As he knows, I never miss an opportunity to raise with him the progress of my local special educational needs and disabilities school, but I am getting that in at the start of my speech so that we can focus on what we are actually here to talk about: the very important matter of children’s social care.
This statement sets out the work done and recommendations made by the Joint Committee on Human Rights in the report “Human Rights of Children in the Social Care System in England”. It goes without saying that the state’s ability to intervene in families to remove children where, and only where, deemed absolutely necessary for a child’s welfare in the first instance is among the gravest and most serious of its responsibilities. But the responsibility the state takes for that child and how they are cared for next, which has the capacity to shape the rest of their life, is equally as serious.
No parliamentary speech can do true justice to the experiences of the care-experienced young people whom the Committee spoke to during its work on the report, in Leeds, in York and at a roundtable in Parliament. What we heard from them will stay with me for the rest of my life. I extend the sincere thanks of the Committee to every one of them for giving voice to their experience in the report, and I hope they see their voices reflected in the recommendations we have made. Many of the young people I spoke to were curious about how a Select Committee inquiry works, but sceptical of there being any hope that anything they may say could make a difference to the social care system in the UK. I hope that scepticism may prove unfounded. Given that my hon. Friend the Minister is in his place, I take it that he is willing to listen to the experiences of those young people.
If I had to summarise all that the Committee heard in one sentence, it would be this: the outcomes of children in and around the care system are too often marred by challenge and difficulty, and too often end in tragedy. Children in the care system are regularly left with inadequate mental health support, despite the substantial trauma they may have faced. For some young people, that means that challenging behaviours that may be met with support and love in a family home are often handled by services including the police, which means that the care system can be a driver of criminalisation. The Committee also heard that when young people leave care, they too often face a cliff edge, and are left alone to navigate adult life without suitable support and the enduring social networks that so many of us rely on. That means that some young people fall into destructive behaviours and relationships, which can end in criminalisation, mental health difficulties or isolation.
Those outcomes are troubling in and of themselves, but they can also lead to something far more tragic. The recent review into early deaths of care leavers, which was commissioned by my hon. Friend the Minister, led by Ashley John-Baptiste and Clare Chamberlain and published just after the Committee’s report, demonstrates that point exceptionally starkly. In 2025, the death rate for care leavers aged between 18 and 24 was three to four times higher than that of the general population.
The report offers a window into the lives and experiences of some of those young people who died far sooner than they should have. It sets out how the services that are supposed to support them, both during and after their time in the social care system, could and should have served them better. That is why the Committee is clear that more targeted support must be made available for young people when they are in and once they have left the social care system, and that there should be greater discretion to extend that support past age cut-offs where necessary. The Government must do more to work with young people, local authorities, the police, social work professionals and others to address the root causes of the challenges too often faced by care-experienced children and adults.
Throughout our evidence gathering, the Committee heard that the legal framework around children’s social care must be reformed and strengthened to deliver a reality where children and professionals understand and can advocate for their rights. One of the recommendations we received most often was also one of the simplest. Despite what I know to be the genuine commitment of this and previous Governments to the UN convention on the rights of the child, the convention remains unincorporated into domestic law in England. Bodies including the Children’s Commissioner, UNICEF and ECPAT UK all highlighted in their evidence to the Committee that the incorporation of the convention could have significant and wide-ranging impacts on children’s rights. The Committee recommends its full incorporation.
All children who are in or around the social care system are vulnerable, but those who have disabilities often face extra barriers and challenges. The Committee heard that those difficulties were often exacerbated by the disjointed and piecemeal legal landscape that comprises the disabled children’s social care framework. The framework is complex and difficult to navigate for professionals, let alone families and the young people themselves. For that reason, the Committee is in agreement with the Law Commission that there should be a single and comprehensive piece of statutory guidance on disabled children’s social care law, as well as an explicit duty to assess where need is identified.
The Committee also heard that the provision of support following assessment is a postcode lottery. It therefore supports the Law Commission’s recommendation to introduce national eligibility criteria to standardise support across local authorities. On top of that, the current working definition of disability in the Children Act 1989 is outdated and must be updated using the language of the Equality Act to be truly inclusive and reflective of the needs of children today.
I remember many of the conversations I had on the doorstep during my general election campaign, but one in particular will stay with me forever. I knocked on the door of a woman who took a good look at me and asked whether I knew what a kinship carer was. I have to confess that at the time I did not. I say that because I suspect that I was not alone in that, despite the fact that kinship care is the most common form of alternative care for children in the UK and across the world. Since the election, I have been incredibly humbled to speak to those delivering kinship care in Bracknell Forest, and I pay tribute to the work of charities such as Kinship that work so hard to represent them. I welcome the work the Law Commission is doing on the legal reform of kinship care, including on clarifying the legal framework. The Committee is looking forward to seeing the outcome of that work.
The children’s social care market is fundamentally broken, and across the country children are being placed in unsuitable and in some cases illegal and unregulated accommodation, lacking proper safeguards and scrutiny and away from the vital support networks of their family and friends. At the same time, the cost of residential accommodation is hitting local authorities’ already stretched budgets. I welcome the introduction of new powers in the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Act 2026 for Ofsted to issue fines for breaches of the Care Standards Act 2000 and the introduction of regional care co-operatives to drive up standards and end profiteering. The 2026 Act will also require local authorities to allow reasonable contact between children in care and their siblings. Although that is to be welcomed, our report concluded that the Government need to follow implementation closely.
I could say much more about the complaints system and the rights of unaccompanied asylum seekers, all of which is included in the report, but I will just finish by again thanking the Minister, paying tribute to my colleagues on the Committee and thanking the young people who spoke to us during our inquiry.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Chair of the Select Committee and other hon. Members involved for their recommendations. Some of the stories that the hon. Gentleman referred to in setting the scene are indeed harrowing and incredibly worrying, and yet transparent and physical change can be made. Things can get better.
My question to the Chair of the Select Committee is this. The protection of children is incredibly important. Will the Select Committee, and ultimately the Minister, share their findings and recommendations with us back home in the Northern Ireland Assembly, where this is a devolved matter, so that we can also implement the necessary changes?
Peter Swallow
The hon. Member has done me the great honour of promoting me: I am not, in fact, the Chair of the Select Committee. That is my noble Friend Lord Alton in the other place, because we are a Joint Committee of both Houses. Nevertheless, I will pass on the hon. Gentleman’s request, and I am sure that the Committee can send a copy of the report to all relevant persons in Northern Ireland. I thank him for his interest.
Sarah Russell (Congleton) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend for that introduction to the Select Committee’s work. I have a particular concern, having met with the National Association of Child Contact Centres this week, about the ability of children in social care to continue to have supervised and appropriate contact with wider family members, particularly in the context of wanting children to see more of their siblings, which everyone would absolutely welcome. My concern is that contact centres have been closing at a huge rate. Is that something that we have tracking information on? Could we look at perhaps using family hubs as locations to resolve that issue?
Peter Swallow
My hon. Friend makes a really good point. As I said, I welcome the amendment to the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Act, which gives some assurance to those at risk of family separation through the care system. However, the proof of the pudding will be in the implementation. As my hon. Friend highlights, there are real practical barriers to that. I hope that the Minister has heard her point and will make sure that it is addressed as we seek to implement that law, which is now rightly on the statute book.
Jen Craft (Thurrock) (Lab)
I listened with great interest to my hon. Friend’s report on the Committee’s inquiry. Will he join me in urging the Minister to look more widely at the issue of looked-after children who spend the vast majority of their lives on in-patient wards in paediatric hospitals? A small number of children have spent the majority of their lives living on in-patient wards because they are ill. If they had a traditional nuclear family, they would be at home and cared for by their parents or carers, but because they are looked-after children, it is far too difficult to find suitable placements for them due to their medical needs. That represents a fundamental lack of care for some of the most vulnerable members of our society. Will my hon. Friend support my call for that to be looked at in greater depth?
Peter Swallow
My hon. Friend gives me the opportunity to reference another report that the Human Rights Committee undertook, as pre-legislative scrutiny of the Mental Health Act 2025. We very much looked at this issue, and particularly the issue of vulnerable young people being placed on adult mental health wards, and urged changes at that point.
It is absolutely the case that vulnerable people who are care-experienced and are also facing mental health crises face a double vulnerability, which heightens the duty of the state to those individuals even further. Some of the measures we have suggested to reform the rights of disabled children can absolutely play a part in that.
I will also highlight something that I did not get a chance to mention. There are recommendations in the report to strengthen the complaints system, including by making sure that there is no wrong door when a care-experienced young people is making a complaint and that they all have an opt-out right to a legal advocate. That would go some way to making sure that children, particularly those facing a mental health crisis, have an advocate in the way that is also envisaged in the Mental Health Act 2025. I hope that if the Government listen to some of the recommendations in the report, we can go some way to addressing the very real concerns that my hon. Friend has raised.
Ben Coleman (Chelsea and Fulham) (Lab)
In my constituency, the care-experienced young people who live in Fulham benefit from the fact that the council recognises care-experienced as a protected characteristic. That means that council housing teams and schools and recruitment processes inside Hammersmith and Fulham have to actively check that their decisions do not disadvantage care leavers. They have to track outcomes, and care leavers have the right to recourse. Currently, this only happens if decent councils such as Hammersmith and Fulham choose to do so. Is there an argument for pressing the Government to make care-experienced a protected characteristic in law?
Peter Swallow
I thank my hon. Friend for raising that point; it gives me another opportunity to place on the record again my thanks to everyone who hosted us in Leeds and York, where we saw some fantastic work being done to support care-experienced young people. I know that that is replicated in councils across the country, including, may I say, in Bracknell Forest, whose children’s social care services were recently rated outstanding by Ofsted—I got the local plug in there. I pay tribute to all those working tirelessly to support children in the social care system. The shortcomings I have highlighted today in no way take away from the many people who have dedicated their working careers to supporting the most vulnerable in our society.
My hon. Friend makes a very interesting point. Making care-experienced a protected characteristic in law is something that we explored as part of the inquiry. The responses that we received on that point were mixed. Some felt that that would be singling care-experienced children out in some way, when in reality what they were hoping and asking for was to be treated no differently from anyone else, so that as they enter adult life, they can leave behind the fact that they are care-experienced and go forward with their lives.
Others felt that the proposal would be beneficial. The evidence was mixed. If I remember correctly, I think we settled in the report on not having that as a recommendation —I will correct the record if I am wrong, but I think that was our decision. It was something we considered, though, because it is something that is raised, and it is interesting to hear that it has worked well in my hon. Friend’s local area. That shows that sometimes these solutions should be locally based.
Backbench Business
(1 day, 7 hours ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
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
Vaccination Rates: England
(1 day, 7 hours ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Danny Beales (Uxbridge and South Ruislip) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered vaccination rates in England.
It is an honour to serve under your chairship today, Mrs Barker. I am pleased to co-sponsor this debate alongside colleagues from the Health and Social Care Committee who are also here today.
It is very easy, from the vantage point of the 21st century, to forget that about half of children used to die before the age of 15 from infection and disease. Thankfully, we now have vaccines and our routine vaccination schedule providing protection against 15 preventable infections across our lifetimes. For decades, our system was one of the best in the world. The childhood diseases that used to cause so much suffering—measles, polio and others—sound like things from history books. I am sure we all have memories of our early school-based vaccinations and flu jabs in the winter period, and the joy of the discovery of the covid-19 vaccine and the hope it brought of a return to normality. So why have this debate today? Because, despite a seemingly continued record of progress and innovation since 2012, our vaccination system has been sleepwalking into a crisis.
The percentage of eligible people getting the major vaccines has been falling year on year, dropping below the 95% coverage recommended by the World Health Organisation to prevent onward transmission. We have now undoubtedly hit a crisis point. Across England as a whole, the 95% target is not being met for any routine childhood vaccination programme and many adult programmes. For example, in 2024-25, only 83.7% of five-year-olds in England had both doses of the measles, mumps and rubella vaccine. In my own constituency, the figure is even lower, at 74%. We are now seeing measles outbreaks in our cities and, shockingly, we have lost our measles elimination status nationally. Tragically, three children died this year from measles—a totally preventable illness.
When questioned about these issues at the Health and Social Care Committee, officials assured us that actions were under way and the tide was turning, but the most recent vaccine stats, released at the end of August, unfortunately show a continued downward trend. The 6-in-1 vaccine dose three coverage is down, the meningitis B dose three coverage is down, and the rotavirus dose two coverage is also down.
This is also a serious equalities issue. Children who grow up unprotected are disproportionately those living in poverty and from ethnic minority communities, and the gap in vaccination status is growing across the country. How has that been allowed to happen in modern Britain? The 2023 vaccination strategy under the last Government was intended to halt the decline, but it is clearly failing, with vaccination rates continuing to fall in the three years since. The WHO target of 95% coverage for all routine vaccination programmes was removed from NHS planning guidance in 2025-26, with the Secretary of State at the time saying,
“If everything is a priority, then nothing is”,
but the choice not to explicitly prioritise vaccinations is incredibly short-sighted.
My colleagues and I on the Health and Social Care Committee held a short inquiry into vaccination rates earlier this year, and we were, to be frank, shocked by the apparent complacency of leading NHS officials. There was no understanding of when it is hoped rates will return to WHO levels, or of whether and when our elimination status will be reached again. There is no target. This debate must be a call to arms to prioritise rebuilding our vaccination system as a matter of utmost urgency and to restore vaccination rates to 95% as soon as possible. Developing an effective vaccination system is not rocket science. Much of the existing strategy is relevant and positive, but we must acknowledge that we are off track.
The debate about what is wrong tends to focus on two key issues: access versus hesitancy. The access argument focuses on systemic, practical barriers that make it harder for people to get vaccinated, such as poor appointment availability, ineffective call and recall systems, lack of data linkage and fragmented health systems. On that argument, recent coverage decline is the sign of a system under strain, rather than a loss of confidence. Most patients and parents do trust vaccines: 85% of people polled by Ipsos in 2025 said that vaccines were safe. But people are busy—moving home, switching GPs—and they do not have endless time to navigate a confusing and increasingly fragmented NHS system.
The gap between MMR 1 and MMR 2 uptake is stark evidence of this failure, with MMR 1 coverage at five years at 91% and MMR 2 coverage at only 83%. The loss of contact is a system failure. Missed appointments should be chased, and families should retain close contact with trusted health professionals to guide them through the childhood vaccination schedule.
Jen Craft (Thurrock) (Lab)
My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. Our mini-inquiry into vaccination rates found that when rates decline or stall, the problem is often lack of trust and inability to access either trusted health professionals or the appointments themselves. Does he agree that improving the availability of vaccinations and advice from trusted health professionals is key to reversing this worrying trend?
Danny Beales
I agree. Those issues are clearly intertwined and cannot be separated.
Every contact should count. Shared digital records should identify, at the next GP appointment, pharmacy check-in, health visit or hospital appointment, where vaccines are missing. The system should be enabled, encouraged and paid to act, but this is currently not the case.
The hesitancy argument focuses on the growing prevalence of misinformation around vaccines and falling trust in vaccines and health institutions more broadly. Polling shows that these are not the most important factors numerically, but for the 15% of parents who have concerns, they matter. Evidence from the University of Manchester shows that this is especially important for certain population groups.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Jen Craft) just said, the barriers are multifaceted: poor trust and poor access go hand in hand, because the best way to build trust is through regular contact with known, trusted professionals. To maximise vaccine coverage, we need a system that can reliably identify and locate every child or patient missing their vaccination, repeatedly invite them for appointments and make attending appointments as easy as possible, with clear lines of responsibility when targets are missed. To do that effectively, the vaccination system needs adequate resourcing, accurate data and explicit accountability for meeting targets. Currently, we have none of that.
The Government have been acting. We are piloting health visits and community pharmacy delivery, although roll-out has been slow and it is unclear when national roll-out will be possible. Parents are now given access to their child’s records through the NHS app, work is under way to improve the consent process for vaccinating children in school. More is being done, and all of that is positive, but the Select Committee is not convinced that that will be enough to restore our vaccination levels to WHO standards, and neither are officials, who are unable to say whether and when levels will be restored.
Moving forward, what do we need? We need resourcing. Data I have obtained through parliamentary questions shows that in 2023-24 NHS England spent 0.51% of its total budget, or £852 million, on vaccination, down from 0.65%, or £989 million, in 2022-23. The very year the strategy released, funding was cut. We also need to be honest about what improvement will cost. Vaccinating the last 10% or 15% of any population is not the same task as vaccinating the first 80%, because of deprivation, language barriers and housing instability. All families affected by those factors need more contact with clinicians, and GPs simply do not have the resources to do the necessary outreach.
We need to fund not just new medicines and drugs, but their roll-out. We should be using lifetime parental consent to increase uptake of school-age vaccinations, and developing efficient, convenient and ongoing catch-up opportunities in schools, shopping centres, nurseries and family hubs. The school-age immunisation service should be operating a check-and-offer approach at every contact.
For the last 15%, we should be willing to fund what actually works: explicit payments to GPs for outreach programmes for underserved communities, including funding for multiple contact attempts, data cleaning, and non-responder tracking, with incentives linked to real outcomes. We should be training healthcare professionals and community groups to have difficult conversations with confidence and making far better use of our community pharmacy network, which is rooted in local areas.
We also need clear accountability; the buck has to stop somewhere locally and nationally, with clear vaccination leads at both levels. Since the Lansley reforms in 2012 and the subsequent austerity cuts, lines of accountability have become blurred. From April 2027, integrated care boards will have greater responsibility for commissioning vaccination programmes locally, but who is overseeing the national strategy? That remains unclear. Who will require corrective action when that is deemed to be necessary? That is not clear.
The removal of national targets was clearly a step backward for the system. Health officials and clinicians tell us that it is not always clear who is responsible when vaccination rates fall at delivery level in a given neighbourhood. We need a new national action plan that sets out concrete steps that will be taken to return coverage to our WHO targets.
We do not have all the systems in place to tell us reliably who has and has not been vaccinated. Data challenges run right through the system. Vaccines given in maternity settings, community pharmacy settings or school often fail to make their way back to the child’s GP surgery because the systems do not talk to each other. How can we expect call-and-recall strategies to work if clinicians do not reliably know which children need to be called?
Lastly, on hesitancy, we need to tackle misinformation, regulate it online and hold the peddlers of harmful and potentially deadly misinformation to account. Social media companies must step up their game in bringing down anti-vax information and providing clear, evidence-based health information instead.
I know much of this is not easy, but that is why it requires genuine commitment and prioritisation. I thank the Minister for listening; will she outline whether the Government accept that the situation is unacceptable and that urgent action is needed, and whether a clear timeline for meeting the WHO targets can and should be agreed by the NHS? If we are to set a timeline, will a clear action plan be outlined to set us on the path back to 95% of all children being vaccinated, so that we can all see a welcome and vital return of our measles elimination status? We must ensure that every child is safe, that people of all ages get the vaccines they need, and that the UK is once again a global leader in vaccinations.
Olly Glover (Didcot and Wantage) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Barker, on the second consecutive day.
I thank the hon. Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Danny Beales), who set out his case so well that I fear my contribution will add very little to his. Nevertheless, I want to add my voice in support of this very important topic. The issue of vaccination rates is critical to public health. Even small drops in uptake below the 95% World Health Organisation target can erode the collective benefit of vaccination and create the potential for more outbreaks, such as the measles outbreaks in recent years.
In Oxfordshire, where my constituency is located, we are below the target for all five of the main early years vaccination categories. For four of the five, we are in the 85% to 95% range, and for the pre-school booster for tetanus, diphtheria and polio, we are in the 90% to 95% range. The figures are too low and really need to be improved.
The hon. Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip set out articulately the sort of coherent and integrated NHS and Government plan that we need to tackle this issue; I will focus on the challenges of misinformation and disinformation. We need a proactive NHS and Government plan, because spending on vaccination is a really good illustration of the principle that prevention is better than subsequent treatment and hospitalisation. Improving our vaccination rates is a really good way of relieving pressure on other parts of the health service, and saving money from up-front investment as well as saving lives.
Vaccination is one of many areas of health where individual decisions can cause harm to a wider community. There will be plenty of parents and people who might have concerns about vaccination, whether legitimate or because of things they have seen on social media, but as far as possible—we had a lot of debate about this during the covid pandemic—we must try to think not just of ourselves and our families, but of our neighbours, friends and work colleagues when making decisions about vaccination.
We know that misinformation and disinformation are both rising, and that has been made easier, alas, by social media. Sustained action will be needed to tackle that. We definitely need tougher regulation of social media companies. We perhaps may need to introduce a verification requirement for any social media account claiming to be that of a medical professional. I would like to see the compulsory labelling and annotation of all posts about vaccination and vaccines with verified scientific facts by the relevant public health or national body.
We need to show leadership as politicians. Perhaps the Government could consider taking the lead on a national campaign in which we all show our support for vaccinations, maybe even sometimes when we take them. As adults, we do not need them quite so often, but we might for certain types of travel—because of my love of walking in the Alps, I have occasionally chosen to have a tick-borne encephalitis vaccine to reduce my risk of infection. We can all do a lot more, be symbols of progress and practise what we preach, as many politicians do for blood donation, for example. Perhaps the new Prime Minister could make one of his famous TikTok videos videos—although, of course, he has a long list of topics to tackle. We can also engage with social media influencers, who have the credibility on social media that those of us who are hopeless at it lack. They can be ambassadors for vaccination as well.
As the hon. Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip said, we need community outreach programmes. We need the health service to be properly supported, because this is yet another thing to add to the long list of things we expect of GPs. We need to go to the people and reach areas and communities that perhaps do not have as much access to or interaction with the health service as others. We need to build dialogue and trust. We need to create easy-to-access and visible vaccination opportunities, including at times of the day convenient for those communities, not just for health and medical organisations.
Only teamwork and determined action can avert us from our current path of falling vaccination rates. If we do not reverse the trend, we will, alas, see more illness and, ultimately, death. I hope to hear from the Minister what we can do to prevent that.
Several hon. Members rose—
Paula Barker (in the Chair)
Order. I need to impose a time limit of three minutes.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Barker, and I thank the Health and Social Care Committee for its work. It is a real privilege to be able to access vaccine programmes. They are the most effective public health interventions, and there are 15 vaccine-preventable infections against which we can be inoculated. Just this week, the winter flu vaccination programme started; I urge all those watching to take up the opportunity to protect themselves and their community.
In York, take-up is relatively high; however, we are not complacent. A particular challenge for us is the uptake of the second MMR vaccine. I would like to know what the Government are doing to support initiatives to improve that. York’s uptake is 86.2% against Yorkshire’s 85% and England’s average of 83.8%, but the World Health Organisation sets the ambition at 95% because that is the level for herd immunity, which will keep our communities safe. When will that target be reintroduced? It must be reintroduced, because we know that it is effective.
There are lessons we can learn about how to deliver vaccinations more effectively. If we think back to covid, many people—communities, schools and faith and community groups—were involved in getting the message out. We need to be able to communicate better to our communities, in this day of information overload, the importance of vaccines. Vaccine delivery mechanisms also need to be expanded—we have heard many examples today, such as health visitors visiting family hubs for the early years, the schools programme, and the places where people connect, including workplaces and elsewhere.
We need to ensure that we have a comprehensive system. I call on the Minister to look at the technology available to her to identify areas of low take-up. We know it is low in areas of deprivation and where ethnic minority groups, who are more hesitant to take up the vaccine, are concentrated. I ask that we have a proper, comprehensive vaccine passport that can be used by all clinicians who deliver the vaccine programme. I also ask the Minister to look at the issue of hesitancy in the round. We know that a small number of children, parents, carers and adults are hesitant about taking up vaccines. Sometimes that is about information, but sometimes it is simply a fear of needles. Can we look at different delivery mechanisms for vaccines so that people and communities are protected?
Dr Danny Chambers (Winchester) (LD)
It is an honour to serve under your chairship, Mrs Barker. I congratulate the hon. Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Danny Beales) on securing this important debate.
It seems that every time I open my social media feed or emails, I am being sold some supplement or superfood to boost my immunity. We know that the most effective way of boosting our immunity is vaccination. Vaccines can achieve something even more extraordinary: they can actually eradicate diseases from the face of the earth. During the 20th century alone, we lost hundreds of millions of people to smallpox until it was eradicated in 1977. Rinderpest, a cattle disease, was wiped off the face of the Earth by vaccination—the second disease to be removed from our planet.
Polio is on the brink of eradication. I recently spoke at a Winchester rotary event about polio eradication, organised by two of my constituents, Gillian Russell and Professor Kordo Saeed, both of whom contracted polio when they were children and have lifelong disabilities as a result. It is important to remind everyone that this is about preventing not just deaths, but disability and ill health that can last a lifetime.
We saw the power of vaccination during the covid-19 pandemic. A century earlier, during the 1918 influenza outbreak, which killed 50 million people, there were no flu vaccines or antiviral treatments. There were not even antibiotics to treat the secondary infections. During covid, we initially had only the same blunt tools—isolation and restriction on gatherings—to try to control the disease, but then the vaccine came out. It saved a huge number of lives and gave us a route out of lockdown. We got back to seeing our families, socialising, going back to work, running our businesses and just living our lives.
But there is a danger that vaccines can become a victim of their own success. We have become so unfamiliar with some diseases that we have forgotten how serious they really are. That is why falling childhood vaccination rates should particularly concern us. When politicians like Donald Trump and parties such as Reform platform anti-vaxxers, parents rightly become worried. They all want to do the best for their children, but when dangerous, provocative and downright false information is platformed, the truth is pushed further and further away from those looking for answers.
Centuries ago, hospitals were filled with iron lungs for children with polio, and graveyards were filled with children under five years old who died from entirely preventable diseases. Vaccines have saved more lives than any other medical intervention in history. They are the closest thing that we have to a safety blanket from disease, and we must not allow dangerous and divisive figures online or in politics to drive people away from science and evidence-led healthcare. Science produces solutions, answers and evidence, but politicians and politics can determine whether they are trusted.
Ben Coleman (Chelsea and Fulham) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Barker. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Danny Beales) and colleagues on the Health and Social Care Committee for securing this important debate.
I am particularly concerned about the fall in childhood vaccination rates and what that means for diseases such as measles, which we had all but eliminated. Before I entered Parliament, I served as a councillor on the North West London integrated care board. Because our figures were so poor, I pushed for North West London NHS to deliver MMR vaccinations through community pharmacies. All families go to pharmacies, so it seemed an obvious thing to do, but I was told that it was simply too complicated. I pushed a bit, and I got two pharmacies into a sort of project. It was a start, but it was nowhere near enough.
When I became a member of the Health and Social Care Committee, then, I was delighted to have the opportunity to pursue the matter. As has been mentioned, when NHS England and UK Health Security Agency officials came before the Committee in February, warning signs were already flashing red. The UK had lost its measles elimination status, London had the lowest childhood vaccination coverage in the country, and children were being hospitalised by a disease that is entirely preventable. It was extraordinary: I was strongly struck by the feeling they gave off of a complete lack of urgency in how they saw the problem. I asked whether anyone had assessed the cost to the NHS of under-vaccination; the answer was no. I asked why a pharmacy MMR pilot across 43 sites in the north-west had not continued; I was told that it had worked as a campaign, but making it routine was “a different question”. I asked whether that question was even being assessed, and it clearly was not.
Sadly, since the Committee’s inquiry the situation has got worse, not better. As my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip touched on, UKHSA data shows that, as of 17 August, England had recorded 970 laboratory-confirmed measles cases this year alone. Of those, 650 patients were children aged 14 or under, and more than half of all cases were in London.
I am not saying that pharmacies are silver bullets—the Committee also heard arguments about strengthening school-age immunisation services—but it should not be either/or. It should be schools, GPs and pharmacies. We should use every available route to help our children and their families.
Officials told the Committee that they do not want to use pharmacies for childhood vaccination because they still do not know whether the evidence supports it. Surely, Minister, the obvious answer is to get the evidence. What are the Government doing to get the evidence? Will they get it by commissioning a proper evaluation of the use of pharmacies for routine MMR vaccination, with a clear deadline? In short, will the Minister ensure that the NHS stops prevaricating and acts before more children pay the price?
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
As always, it is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Barker—you are certainly earning your money, because you were here yesterday and are back again today. I congratulate the hon. Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Danny Beales) on introducing this debate, and I thank him for setting the scene incredibly well. As the Democratic Unionist party’s spokesperson on health, I am particularly interested in this topic and how it affects those in Northern Ireland. It is good to see the Minister in her place again, and I wish her well in her role. I know that her answers will encourage us—no pressure!
Vaccines have saved millions of lives, protecting our children from serious illnesses and life-changing complications. However, over the last decade, vaccination uptake has declined across the United Kingdom. In 2021, data showed that none of the routine childhood vaccinations had reached the World Health Organisation’s recommended 95% coverage target. That trend reveals a significant risk to public health, which we have already seen with localised outbreaks of measles and whooping cough in areas across the United Kingdom. Research published in August also showed further falls in UK-wide uptake among 12-month-old children of vaccines including pneumococcal conjugate, rotavirus and MenB. If vaccines are not done, it can lead to serious illnesses including pneumonia, meningitis and other life-threatening infections.
I will briefly comment on Northern Ireland, and then I have some asks of the Minister. In Northern Ireland, for children aged 24 months, coverage was above 84% for all reported vaccines. In 2024, the Department of Health warned that a measles outbreak was likely unless urgent action was taken to increase MMR vaccine uptake in Northern Ireland.
New parents must have access to clear, accurate and reassuring information that addresses uncertainty and maintains confidence in the safety of these vaccines. However, my biggest concern is related to practical barriers, which I want to ask about. Research from the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health has emphasised that vaccine confidence remains generally high across the UK, while practical issues in accessing vaccination services are far more likely to contribute to declining uptake. Practical barriers are largely faced by those living in deprived areas, for example, or those living in rural areas who do not have access to transport.
Can the Minister comment on those who are prevented from accessing vaccines by lack of transport? Will she have discussions with the relevant Minister in the Northern Ireland Executive on vaccination uptake in Northern Ireland? We must get the correct messaging across social media and into schools with a non-condescending approach. Vaccination is in all of our best interests, but an educational approach must be the way forward. With great respect, this should not be a stick with which to beat parents who believe they are doing the best for their children.
Dr Peter Prinsley (Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Barker. I thank the members of the Health and Social Care Committee for securing this debate.
Doctors like me do not need any convincing about vaccination, but some of our political opponents do not agree. It is incredible to think that a platform was given at last year’s Reform conference to someone claiming that vaccinations had caused cancer in the royal family, and that the head of the United States Health Department is a vaccine sceptic. That is quite pernicious and wrong—very, very wrong. Doctors like me do not need convincing. Nor do wives like mine who are Rhesus-negative and whose mothers had multiple miscarriages before the discovery of anti-D injections to prevent baby loss, which was first tested in the famous Sing Sing prison experiments.
When I was young, every county had a school for the deaf, but they had all closed by the time I was a senior ENT surgeon. Why was that? Maternal rubella, or German measles, in pregnancy had been abolished by simply vaccinating all girls at puberty, just like that—brilliant. There was no longer a need for so many schools for the deaf. A landmark 2026 Lancet study reported no cervical cancer deaths among women aged 20 to 24 between 2020 and 2024: a dramatic drop from the previous five-year period directly credited to the national human papillomavirus vaccination programme. We will see the same fall in the number of deaths from oropharyngeal throat cancer in boys as a result of HPV vaccination.
We all know that the national response to the pandemic was not a glorious one. There were costly errors in personal protective equipment and test and trace, but the one thing we did get right was vaccination, which saved countless lives. I recall myself vaccinating the first very elderly patients in Great Yarmouth.
Just lately we have seen reports of increased life expectancy in patients with malignant melanoma due to personalised cancer vaccines—brilliant. Doctors like me, unlike some politicians, need no convincing of the crucial importance of vaccination, but there must be a warning here, for we are short of clinical academics who lead medical education and research. We need to incubate the next generation of scientists who will lead these discoveries, for this is the country of Jenner, who discovered vaccination; of Lister, who discovered antisepsis; and of Fleming, who discovered penicillin. We have a great legacy, and we must secure a great future.
Lizzi Collinge (Morecambe and Lunesdale) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Barker. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Danny Beales) for securing this important debate.
Over the last 15 years, childhood vaccination rates have fallen across Britain. The uptake of vaccinations for those aged under five is well below the World Health Organisation’s 95% target. The paradox of vaccination is that it has become a victim of its own success. It has protected us so effectively for so long that we can forget what it has saved us from. My grandma’s friend died from diphtheria at the age of 12. When I worked in public health, I met a lady whose mum had rubella during pregnancy, as a result of which that lady had serious impairments.
Online misinformation is often put forward as the root driver of our falling vaccination rates. It is certainly true that false claims are dangerously contagious, but any explanation that focuses only on anti-vaxxers and the often-monetised pedlars of misinformation and disinformation risks mistaking the loudest part of the problem for the largest part of the problem. Most parents who miss vaccinations are simply exhausted, overstretched or unable to get an appointment that fits around their lives. Anyone who has experienced the first few months of a baby’s life knows exactly what it is like, but at any time of life, when clinics require long journeys on public transport or time off work, missed vaccination is more often due to practical barriers than to any ideological opposition. Although vaccination in this country might be free, accessing it is not always without cost.
How do we fix it? First, we need to rebuild health visiting and early years services, as well as rebuilding the links between families and GPs, because vaccination rates are highest when people have access to trusted professionals who they see regularly. I certainly know that health visiting is in a much worse place than when I had my first child. The investment that this Labour Government are putting into our health services should address that, but I was interested to hear my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip talk about the fragmented and confusing pathways, which I think are still there, and about his concrete suggested actions. I would like to hear the Minister’s response.
Finally, I do not want us to forget how poverty and deprivation affect vaccination uptake rates. When someone is worried about making the rent, topping up the electric meter or putting food on the table, routine health admin can fall down the list. All the action we are taking through the child poverty strategy, lifting the two-child benefit limit and free breakfast clubs will have a good impact.
I will use my final seconds to pay tribute to an absolute vaccine legend. Dolly Parton gave $1 million to the development of the Moderna vaccine. Not only that, she did so much to encourage the uptake of the covid vaccine. I think we will all miss her.
Josh Newbury (Cannock Chase) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under you in the Chair, Mrs Barker. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Danny Beales) for securing the debate. I am the parent of two children who had plenty of vaccinations. One of them took it in her stride and the other made the biggest drama in the history of medicine, so I can appreciate why so many parents approach this topic with trepidation.
Before this debate, my team and I spoke to staff working in the Cannock North primary care network, which covers seven practices in the most deprived part of my constituency, about their efforts to improve lagging vaccination rates. They told me that rates are quite good for young babies, but they start to fall off as children get older, so they are looking at how they can step in earlier. They have produced plain and simple leaflets that explain the symptoms that a child might experience if they are not vaccinated. Staff will still hear parents say, “Well, I wasn’t vaccinated against it,” or “I’ve never even heard of polio,” so they are tackling the false assumption that choosing not to vaccinate is safe. They are also looking at a simple sticker system for the red book as a quick visual reminder of the schedule.
Relationships with health practitioners can also be vital, as we have heard. The PCN suggested that trained health visitors could provide early immunisation, which I know is being trialled in other parts of England. The more hurdles we can remove, the better.
That brings me to neighbourhood health centres, where services could be joined up and accessible. I agree with the Staffordshire and Stoke-on-Trent ICB and NHS Property Services that Cannock and Rugeley would both be prime spots for centres. We know that vaccination programmes delivered strictly through GP practices see up to 27% lower uptake in deprived areas, whereas accessible pharmacy, community and neighbourhood programmes narrow that gap to as little as 7%. The lesson I took from speaking to the Cannock North PCN team is that improving vaccination rates does not necessarily require one huge intervention.
Finally, I would like to finish by raising a funding issue with the Minister. Since funding for childhood immunisations moved to the quality and outcomes framework, practices receive the funding only if they meet the 96% target. In a deprived area with a significant Traveller community, like Chadsmoor, that can be incredibly difficult. Practices can spend significant time and money contacting families but still find themselves falling well short. For example, a practice could move from 70% to 80% after a huge effort but still receive no funding. I ask the Minister whether QOF could recognise progress in closing health inequalities, rather than just rewarding in-built advantage.
Clearly, the route to achieving high vaccination rates will look a bit different in every community. The practices I have spoken to are doing brilliant work despite funding disadvantages, and I wonder whether we could see outstanding outcomes in Cannock Chase and right across the country if we put rocket boosters under the innovation that we already see right across primary care.
Sarah Russell (Congleton) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Barker. I thank my hon. Friends the Members for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Danny Beales) and for Worthing West (Dr Cooper) and the hon. Member for Oxford West and Abingdon (Layla Moran) for securing this debate on such an important issue. I will attempt to talk about three different vaccinations in less than three minutes, but before I do that, I would like to say a huge thank you to Congleton Rotary, which recently raised over £1,000 towards polio vaccination. That is such an important topic.
First, it is completely unacceptable that the UK lost its measles-free status this year. We know that it can be a devastating disease for anyone who is unvaccinated, but it is especially dangerous for babies, young people, pregnant women and anyone with a weakened immune system. We have relied on herd immunity for a very long time, and we no longer have the percentage required to have that.
During the last major outbreak in central and eastern Cheshire, nearly a quarter of the cases were in the under-ones. Our babies depend on the rest of us having vaccinations, because otherwise they are profoundly vulnerable. We must work to get that rate back up again. Only 90% of children in Cheshire East had received both doses of the MMR vaccine by their fifth birthday. We must work harder on that, and I would welcome any progress that the Government can bring, including by addressing the legacy of missed appointments during the covid pandemic.
The second vaccination that I want to talk about is cervical cancer. Every year, 3,300 women are still being diagnosed despite the take-up of the HPV vaccine among younger women, and around 685 women a year are losing their lives to the disease. The recent study mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket (Dr Prinsley) shows that the risk of cervical cancer death before the age of 30 has effectively reduced to zero—the HPV vaccine is amazing.
Our goal as a Government is to eliminate cervical cancer by 2040, which would be fantastic, and we have a 90% target vaccination rate for girls. In Cheshire East, the vaccination rate at the moment is 77.4% of girls but only 72% of boys. For some reason, we do not have a target for boys, but boys are also vulnerable to the equivalent cancers, and they absolutely need and deserve the same protection as girls. Why are we not making sure that they also have these targets?
Lady Garden Foundation research found that over 45% of eligible girls who missed their school HPV vaccination did so because a consent form was not returned. Active parental refusal apparently accounts for just 12% of the failure rate. As a parent, I do not want vaccination to be forced on anybody, of course, but lifetime consent would make life so much easier. Why am I being asked every single time? Unless a child’s health status has changed, there is really no reason to withdraw vaccination consent. I believe we could make that much easier.
Lastly, Cheshire has so many people in hospital with flu each year, so I remind everybody of the importance of vaccinating children against flu, to protect both them and their elderly relatives over Christmas. I thank the Minister and the Health and Social Care Committee, and I hope we can move this forward.
Alex Mayer (Dunstable and Leighton Buzzard) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Barker.
Over the summer, I had the pleasure of visiting Kingsbury Court surgery to find out about its big push on childhood vaccination. I met Dr Abdullah Khan, who told me that, like others, he was really worried about the return of measles, which he thought created an urgent need for action. He saw the outbreak in Enfield as a real warning shot and talked about the UK losing its WHO measles elimination status.
Dr Khan told me his surgery had decided it needed a new approach—it is fairly similar to what we have heard today—built around confidence and convenience. I was introduced to the senior nurse, Elena Costache, who showed me a display she had made to rebut some of the myths that parents are seeing online. She also explained how staff go online to dispel those myths in the comments made on the surgery’s own webpage, doing so respectfully but directly, and always in plain English.
Everything the surgery staff told me was useful and informative, although I have to say that one bit made me feel rather ancient: they said that one issue was that many parents seemed to think that measles, mumps and things like that were from long, long ago. I still have a childhood book called “Alex’s mumps book”, with lots of fun activities to do while I was a bit under the weather.
Those at the surgery also talked about convenience—staff going into nurseries, children’s centres and crèches—about the active outreach they do and about the crucial point of following up again and again on missed appointments. All this is working. They are doing about 140 vaccinations a month and, importantly, over the last year they got their childhood vaccination rate up by 9%, which is fantastic, although they still plan to go further.
One specific issue staff raised with me was keeping up with vaccinations in an area with an awful lot of new build housing. Can the Minister comment on specific measures the Government are taking to ensure that people can stay up to date with their vaccinations during the upheaval of a house move? I also hope she can join me in congratulating Kingsbury Court GP surgery on what I think is a jab well done.
Sojan Joseph (Ashford) (Lab)
This is an incredibly important and timely debate. The latest UK Health Security Agency data, published on Tuesday, underlined how vaccine rates have continued to decline. It also showed that uptake of the meningitis B booster for children aged two fell slightly last year. I find that especially alarming, given the meningitis outbreak in Kent earlier this year. There were 21 confirmed cases, tragically including the deaths of two young people. A number of schools across east Kent also recorded confirmed cases, including one in my constituency. I am grateful for the co-ordinated action led by the various agencies. Their swift response helped to ensure that clear public health advice was communicated and that vaccination programmes could be rapidly rolled out.
Although I warmly welcome that action, at the time of the outbreak I joined colleagues from across the House in calling for more to be done. I was therefore pleased that, during the summer, the UKHSA and NHS England introduced a one-off national meningitis B vaccination programme to protect young people at the highest risk before the start of the new academic year, when meningitis B cases typically rise. The Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation also published a number of recommendations on a routine meningitis B programme for adolescents. Before the summer recess, the Government were considering those recommendations. Will the Minister provide an update on those considerations?
The meningitis outbreak in Kent should serve as a warning of the serious consequences when vaccine-preventable diseases regain ground. As the chair of the all-party parliamentary group for global tuberculosis, I also point to rising rates of TB in the UK. TB meningitis is one of the most severe forms of TB, particularly in young children. The BCG vaccine protects against TB, particularly serious forms of the infection such as TB meningitis. However, the latest data for the UK shows that, in the first quarter of the year, almost one in five children eligible for the BCG vaccine did not receive it.
Vaccinations remain an important part of preventing severe childhood TB, alongside early diagnosis and treatment. However, the BCG vaccine is more than 100 years old and does not provide reliable protection against pulmonary TB in adults. I therefore stress the need for continued investment in research and development on new, more effective TB vaccines. That is particularly important, given the country’s role in global tuberculosis research and development.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket (Dr Prinsley) talked about Reform using its conference stage to talk about an anti-vaccination programme. We have a duty to base our discussions about vaccinations on facts and evidence. As politicians, we have a particular responsibility to promote clear, evidence-based information and to avoid contributing to uncertainty and mistrust.
Josh Fenton-Glynn (Calder Valley) (Lab)
It is an honour to serve under your chairship, Mrs Barker. I thank my Health and Social Care Committee colleagues for bringing forward this debate.
One thing we learned during the pandemic was just how much we all rely on each other. Vaccines were a huge part of helping us get back to seeing our families and taking part in our communities. We got through that period because we recognised that looking after each other meant looking after ourselves.
At the same time, we saw a growth of misinformation online. Many of us spent more time online during the pandemic and, too often, social media algorithms pushed people towards content that reinforces fear rather than answers questions. There is a fundamental problem with misinformation, which is that science is evolving and lives in the grey area; it is much easier to be wrong with certainty.
Diseases that once killed and disabled huge swathes of our population have been brought under control because of generations of vaccines. That is something we should never take for granted. Vaccines do not cause autism; they cause healthy children. Yet we are seeing a worrying decline in the uptake of vaccines, which is the reason for this debate.
In England, less than 84% of children have received both doses of the MMR vaccine, well below the 95% target that gives us the best protection. The consequences are not theoretical—we are experiencing them now. The growth of misinformation and the anti-vax movement puts children’s lives at risk.
The majority of measles cases since the start of this year—61%—have been in children under 10. Most of those children were unvaccinated. Tragically, two children have died—of a preventable disease for which there is a safe and effective vaccine. That is two families suffering an unimaginable loss.
The irony with vaccines is that the lives saved never make the headlines—the children who do not get sick, the hospital admissions we do not have. The families who never experience that terrible loss will never know that it was vaccines that spared them from it.
At the core of this debate are trust and responsibility. The Government have a responsibility to champion the benefits of vaccines and to set out a clear path to 95%. We have a responsibility to take up those vaccines, but the Government must act. If social media companies do not stop the harmful content we have talked about, we must act to make sure they do.
I once again thank my fellow Health and Social Care Committee members for bringing forward this debate. We need to make sure we have a clear plan and clear action so that we can solve this problem.
Alison Bennett (Mid Sussex) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship this afternoon, Mrs Barker. I commend the hon. Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Danny Beales) on setting out the work that the Health and Social Care Committee has done, and all its members on looking into this vital issue.
Not so long ago, hospitals in this country were filled with rows of iron lungs ventilating children paralysed by polio, and schools were forced to close their doors as measles swept through entire classrooms, leaving some children permanently disabled, and some parents burying their children. We do not see those scenes today, and that is because of one the single greatest achievements in the history of medicine: vaccination. In 2026, it is easy to forget that and to take for granted a world in which parents do not fear that a common childhood illness might kill their child.
However, we are at risk of forgetting the lessons our grandparents learned the hard way, and the numbers prove it. In England, just 81% of five-year-olds have received their 4-in-1 jab against diseases such as polio and tetanus, down from 89% a decade ago, and only 84% have had both their MMR jabs, down from 88%. No childhood vaccine in this country now meets the 95% coverage threshold the World Health Organisation tells us we need in order to keep these diseases from spreading—and they are spreading. Over 800 cases of measles have already been confirmed this year, closing in on the total for the whole of last year.
Vaccine take-up is not evenly spread across our country either. In London, MMR coverage is just 72%, but in the south-west it is 83%—an 11 point gap mapped on to deprivation, inequalities and communities that already find it hardest to access the healthcare they need. It is not just children: only 70% of over-65s and 42% of pregnant women received a flu vaccine this past season, both figures well short of where they need to be. Last year gave us one of the worst flu seasons in memory.
As the hon. Member for Ashford (Sojan Joseph) noted, the tragedy we saw with the Kent meningitis outbreak earlier this year led to a change in policy on vaccination for meningitis, and we saw that there was the capacity for authorities to do more and to take action. As a mum to a teen who has been called for a meningitis vaccination this summer, I am hugely grateful for that change in policy. That action tells us something important: that when we make vaccination easier to access, uptake follows, and that this is not a lost cause but a policy failure, and policy failures can be fixed.
There is also a darker force at work, and we must be honest about it. Online medical disinformation is a genuine threat to public health, and it is increasingly being given a platform by people who should know better. Reform has refused to condemn Donald Trump’s conspiracy theories linking vaccines to autism. As was noted by the hon. Member for Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket (Dr Prinsley), at Reform UK’s conference last year a keynote speaker blamed vaccines for cancer in the royal family.
We have seen in the United States exactly where this leads: trusted scientific institutions hollowed out, and the health of a nation put at risk. Doctors and nurses in our own GP surgeries and walk-in centres are now telling us that they are hearing these same conspiracy theories in this country today. We must listen to scientists, not conspiracy theorists, and politicians who lend credibility to dangerous medical falsehoods must be held to account for the harm they cause.
What can we do about it? First, we can invest properly, and for the long term, in our vaccination programmes. This cannot keep being treated as a cost-neutral afterthought. NHS England’s strategy exists on paper, but everyone—from clinicians to campaigners—agrees that it lacks the funding and senior leadership to actually turn things around.
Secondly, we can take vaccination to where people already are. Community spaces and the places people trust should be central to how we deliver an ambitious new push for record vaccination rates. That is particularly true among the communities that we too often write off as hard to reach.
Thirdly, we need a serious, funded strategy to fight medical disinformation head on—not one or two well-meaning social media videos, but a real strategy. That means supporting doctors and nurses with the tools and training to engage constructively with vaccine-sceptical patients; investing in public health messaging that works with trusted local voices and online influencers, not against them; targeted outreach to the communities where scepticism runs deepest; criminal liability for online influencers and politicians alike who profit from spreading dangerous medical disinformation; and a new verification system so that no one can falsely claim to be a medical professional online.
None of that is about shaming families who have been misled. It is about meeting them where they are, with facts, compassion and a system that makes doing the right thing the easy thing. We owe it to every family who lived through the era of iron lungs and empty classrooms not to let their hard-won progress slip away on our watch. Let us fund vaccination properly, let us take it into every community and let us have the courage to say clearly and without apology that we follow the science, not the conspiracy theories.
Dr Caroline Johnson (Sleaford and North Hykeham) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship this afternoon, Mrs Barker. I congratulate the hon. Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Danny Beales) on securing this important debate.
Why do we vaccinate? As we have heard today, we vaccinate because it prevents illness, it reduces the severity of illnesses that do occur, and it reduces complications. I should declare an interest as a consultant paediatrician in the NHS, as a parent of three children between 11 and 19 and as someone who was a volunteer vaccinator for many months at the local vaccine centre during the covid-19 pandemic.
Vaccines were first identified, or discovered, by Edward Jenner in 1796. He discovered the smallpox vaccine, which eliminated smallpox completely between 1958 and 1977. We have seen that happen with so many diseases. I have a list, but it is so long that I am not sure I have time to read it all out: diphtheria, tetanus, polio, haemophilus influenzae, pertussis, rotavirus, hepatitis B, tuberculosis, flu, respiratory syncytial virus, shingles, human papillomavirus, various strains of meningitis, rubella, mumps, coronavirus—I could go on. There are so many different things to which we now have vaccines that we did not have previously and that have reduced the incidence of death and serious illness in so many people. It is almost impossible to quantify how many lives have been saved.
I want to focus on measles, which several hon. Members have mentioned. My great-uncle Leonard died of measles at the age of 15 months. Pre-vaccine, it was a common condition that killed many people. Thankfully, now it is not—and why? Because of vaccines. Vaccination rates have fallen, however, and we have lost our measles-free status. We need to make sure, as far as possible, that everyone gets the vaccine. The concept of herd immunity means that if some children cannot be vaccinated because of a personal health condition, they will be protected to an extent by the fact of a large proportion of the population having been vaccinated, and by the reduction of that disease within the community in some conditions. If vaccination rates fall, there is a risk to those people, as well as to those who have just decided not to have the vaccine. I would be interested to know how the Minister will focus on measles in particular.
When we were in office, the Conservatives modernised the routine vaccination programme. In 2015, the UK became the first country to offer the Bexsero vaccine against meningitis B, which was given to babies aged eight to 16 weeks, followed by a booster around their first birthday. In 2017, we also switched to the hexavalent six-in-one routine vaccine programme so that babies could be protected against hepatitis B for the first time. Conservative Ministers expanded the HPV vaccination to boys, bringing the UK in line with other developed countries and preventing approximately 30,000 cases of cancer in males. The vaccine taskforce secured seven vaccines for the UK during the coronavirus pandemic, invested over £400 million in scaling up domestic manufacturing and mobilised more than 100,000 volunteers with sites right across the country. We also backed the Oxford-AstraZeneca vaccine with public funding and agreed a 10-year partnership with Moderna to invest in mRNA research and development. The previous Government supported vaccination in a number of ways; I look forward to hearing from the Minister what her Government will do to support it.
I also want to talk about meningitis B, which is a horrible, rapid disease that affects patients very quickly. It is one of the diseases that is quite frightening to see as a paediatrician because of the speed at which a child goes from being well to being critically ill. We have all heard about putting the glass across the rash to see whether it disappears, but I have watched that rash appear on children with lightning speed. The disease kills, and it leaves many children with severe, lifelong disabilities.
In 2015, the UK was first in the world to bring in a vaccine against meningitis for small children, but last year we saw meningitis B infections in groups of older children and young adults in Kent, Dorset and Reading. There were 21 cases in Kent and two deaths. The Government quickly brought in a local vaccine programme to treat people who might have been at risk, but there was also a stampede for private provision; Boots, Superdrug and other commercial ventures ran out of the vaccine within a few hours.
The Government have decided to bring in a system under which people born between 1 September 2007 and 31 August 2008, and those who are starting university or further education colleges for the first time this year, will be able to get the vaccine. However, the JCVI has suggested that children who have been vaccinated with one dose should be given a booster at age 15. That means those who were born after 1 May 2015, so the Minister has a little while to manage that, but the JCVI has also recommended two doses for adolescents who did not get the first dose. The Government do not seem to have taken up that recommendation yet. Will they do so? When?
A meningitis vaccine has also been brought in for men who have sex with men because, interestingly, it also has a 42% protective rate for gonococcal conditions. There was a record high of 85,000 cases in 2023. The vaccine has helped with those cases, but it would be beneficial to know when the Government will ensure that all our young children have the protection that they need against this frightening disease.
Other things are slipping, too. The flu vaccination is highly effective at reducing seasonal hospital admissions. The WHO recognises that it is the most effective way to prevent infection and severe outcomes from flu, but coverage among the elderly and at-risk groups has declined in England. I would be interested to hear why the Minister thinks that is, what her research shows and what she is going to do about it.
Respiratory syncytial virus affects not just children, but the elderly. The vaccine is incredibly effective in the elderly; last year, the JCVI recommended its extension to the over-80s. At the time, I asked Ministers whether the vaccine, having been recommended by the JCVI in the early summer, would be ready for last winter. My understanding, from what was said, was that they were going to work at pace. They reassured me that it would happen, but it did not. I believe that the vaccine will be available to older people this winter, but what is the Minister doing to make sure that they are aware of that so that they take it up? It will help to reduce admissions to hospital over the winter and reduce the pressure on A&Es and ambulance services, and it will mean that people are less unwell, which is obviously a good thing.
Many hon. Members have talked about vaccine hesitancy. Polling by Ipsos found that more than two thirds of adults believed that it was
“difficult for the public to spot misleading health information.”
It also found that those in the most deprived areas were more likely to be affected. According to a UK Health Security Agency survey, last year 47% of parents who reported seeing concerning information about vaccines said that they had seen it on social media. As hon. Members have said, those sorts of message, such as the suggestion that cancer in the royal family was caused by vaccines, were platformed by a political party at a conference.
It is important that we give responsible information about vaccines that we know to be true. We do not pretend that there are no risks. There is always a small risk to anything: we take a risk when we get up in the morning and come to work, and we take a risk every time we cross the road. Every aspect of our life contains risk, but we need to be honest with people and explain that the risks of vaccines are tiny and the risks of the disease are potentially much greater. That will mean that people can make informed decisions.
When patients who have not been vaccinated come to clinic—we check with all children whether they have been vaccinated when they come for their first clinical appointment—they have very often refused once and not been asked again. The reason why has not been discussed. No one has asked them why they are worried about the vaccine; it has just been accepted at face value. Very often, when we talk to parents about it, they will then have their children vaccinated. We need to make sure that when unvaccinated children do present to medical services, we take the opportunity to try to get them vaccinated.
I welcome the addition to the relationships, sex and health education curriculum of facts about vaccination and immunisation, but what is happening to provide public information to parents and other adults? It is said that vaccine uptake among ethnic minority groups is markedly lower. Does the Minister understand why? What is she doing to improve it? The Prime Minister has previously attested that Healthwatch is a key factor in engaging marginalised communities, but this Labour Government have placed it on the chopping block in the Health Bill, which is due back in the House next week. How does the Minister foresee that role being taken up by the patient experience body with which the Government intend to replace it?
From April next year, integrated care boards instead of NHS England will be responsible for vaccinations. I understand that that is part of the Minister’s strategic commissioning vision, but will that additional responsibility be met with additional resources? How will the Government ensure that it does not cause further slippage in vaccinations?
Finally, I want to mention the life sciences industry, which is struggling under this Government’s tax burden. Now that the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology has been abolished, what will the Minister do to ensure that the industry is given the support that it needs?
Occasionally during my career, a parent of a critically ill child has looked me in the eye, often as the child is being put in an ambulance to an intensive care unit, and said, “If I’d given my child the vaccine, they wouldn’t be this ill, would they, Doctor?” There is trauma and grief for those parents, and a regret that is completely unnecessary and can be prevented. It is in the hands of the Minister and of this Government to do what they can to prevent it. I look forward to hearing what the Minister plans to do.
The Minister for Public Health and Patient Safety (Dame Diana Johnson)
It is a pleasure to serve under you today, Mrs Barker. I am grateful to the Chair of the Health and Social Care Committee, the hon. Member for Oxford West and Abingdon (Layla Moran), and its members for securing this important debate and am grateful to all hon. Members who have spoken this afternoon. I commend my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Danny Beales) for his passionate opening statement. I also welcome the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Dr Johnson), back to her place after the reshuffle; I congratulate her on surviving for so long.
I know that Members across the House are very concerned about this issue. I have been struck by the knowledge and expertise around the Chamber this afternoon. Many questions have been posed. If I do not get to every question that Members have asked, I will write to them with an answer.
After clean water, vaccination is the most effective public health intervention for saving lives and promoting good health. It protects individuals, protects families and protects communities. One vaccination can change the whole course of a life for the better or, if it is missed, for the worse. I am very conscious of that as a Hull MP, because in October 1961 we were the first city to mass-vaccinate with the new oral vaccine. When we faced a polio outbreak that threatened the city, over 350,000 people were vaccinated in two weeks. That led to the national roll-out soon afterwards, helping to virtually eliminate the disease nationwide.
Over generations, vaccinations have made diseases that once killed or disabled thousands of children rare and have eradicated smallpox worldwide. Vaccination is central to this Government’s wider shift from sickness to prevention. In terms of the diseases we protect against, we deliver at the moment what I still believe is a world-class vaccination programme, backed by expert advice from the independent Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation. But the benefits depend on high uptake, and childhood vaccination rates have moved in the wrong direction.
Falling vaccination rates are a very serious challenge. Despite our programme achieving more than 90% coverage for babies’ first doses against diseases such as polio and measles, we are not hitting our targets. There is no single cause and there is no quick fix. We know that some families struggle to get an appointment that works for them or have not received clear, trusted information in a way that works for them. Services also vary across the country. The pandemic put further pressures on the health system and misinformation can add to these problems.
[Sir Desmond Swayne in the Chair]
We are therefore acting on four fronts: clearer NHS organisation, more flexible services, better public information and joined-up digital records. I will deal with each in turn, but first I will address targets, as well as funding and delegation to ICBs. Let us be clear: the Government have not dropped vaccination targets. To summarise, our targets are 95% for routine pre-school immunisations and 90% for routine school-age immunisations. Our targets remain in force and are based on standards set by the World Health Organisation. We have simplified the NHS planning guidance to avoid duplication, but we did not lower our ambition. We are also backing targets with better accountability. Coverage of MMR vaccinations for young children will form part of how the performance of NHS ICBs will be assessed as they take on responsibility for vaccination services from April next year.
We have not cut funding for vaccination services. We have confirmed funding for the next three years, giving the NHS certainty as responsibility moves from the NHS regions to ICBs in April 2027. Excluding covid-19 vaccinations, that is a real-terms increase and will help ICBs and vaccination service providers to plan service improvements further ahead.
On delegation, ICBs are best placed to improve vaccination coverage because they understand the needs of their local communities. That matters because the reasons for low coverage vary from place to place. ICBs can shape these services around local needs and barriers, whether that means more convenient appointments or clearer information from trusted sources. This is devolution in action.
I reassure hon. Members that national bodies will continue to set standards, monitor performance and hold the system to account.
Dame Diana Johnson
I will carry on because I have very limited time, but I am happy to write to the hon. Gentleman or talk to him afterwards. I know there are concerns about the cuts that have been made to ICB running costs. These are planned reductions that relate just to administration, not the funding that will be used to provide frontline vaccination services.
Turning to pre-school access, flexible services are critical. Vaccination rates are lowest in the most deprived communities, so improving uptake means making services easier to use. Pre-school children will continue to receive their vaccinations through their GPs. We have increased the payment to GPs for each routine childhood vaccination from £10.06 to £12.06 and changed the GP incentives to reward improvements where uptake is lowest.
However, we recognise that GP services will not reach every family and are therefore testing vaccinations through health visiting teams, including through 12 pilots across England, four of which are in London. Health visitors have brought vaccines to family homes to ensure that the most vulnerable families are offered these lifesaving interventions. We have also been expanding the use of community pharmacies and are evaluating that. We are looking at supporting targeted local outreach as well. The aim is simple: to reach those who might otherwise miss out.
School-age vaccinations are also a priority. The joint school-aged vaccination programme of work with my Department and the Department for Education is now overseeing actions to improve coverage in schools by resolving local delivery problems. The NHS is also rolling-out new digital technology to make it easier for busy parents to provide consent. It has published revised guidance for schools and the NHS and there are regional support forums to tackle any problems that are present.
We also have the Mavis—manage vaccinations in schools—scheme. That is a new digital system that allows parents to give consent online and helps NHS teams to keep records up to date. By September 2026, it will be used by 72% of school vaccination teams, covering more than 13,800 schools, with further expansion planned for April ’27.
Turning next to awareness, most parents want to do the right thing for their children. Our job is to ensure that they can easily find the clear and trustworthy information that they need. That means stronger public campaigns and confident healthcare professionals giving that advice. We think that it could also be provided by schools and better start hubs, as well as trusted local organisations.
We all agree that false claims online can cause huge concern and worry. As a number of hon. Members have said, the actions of politicians have consequences. We all share the responsibility to base our comments on science and evidence. We have seen the damage that misinformation can cause. The entirely discredited and morally repugnant claims linking MMR and autism in the 1990s led to a substantial fall in coverage, so experts now monitor emerging misinformation and respond with accurate information. I hear the calls today for stronger action against social media companies, but we do not want to mistake misinformation for the whole problem. To improve coverage, many families simply need vaccinations to be easier to understand and to access.
I will conclude with the issue of digital and data. We are improving vaccination records. At the moment, information is held in different NHS systems and does not always follow a patient between services. Through new digital systems, we are joining those records together. That will help healthcare professionals to see which vaccinations someone has had, allow the NHS to identify communities where uptake is low and give families clearer records, reminders and information about where to get vaccinated. Over time, families will also be able to access more of this through the NHS app.
Vaccinations have protected generations from serious disease, and all of us have a vested interest in ensuring that they continue to do so. That means clear accountability, easier access, trusted information and better record keeping. As I have set out, we are acting on each of those fronts. Rebuilding coverage will take sustained effort, but we will monitor progress closely and take further action wherever it is needed.
I note that the House of Lords Childhood Vaccinations Committee is due to report shortly. As the new Minister in this post, I will be looking very closely at the recommendations that come out of that report. I have had the chance to look at the letters that the Health and Social Care Committee wrote to one of my predecessors, and I can assure all hon. Members in the room today that I will go back to the Department and redouble my efforts to ensure that we see the increase that we all want in the number of vaccinations, particularly for children. I thank all hon. Members for their contributions this afternoon.
Danny Beales
Thank you, Sir Desmond, for chairing the end of the debate, if not the beginning. I thank the Minister for her response. I and the rest of the Committee welcome her commitment to get back to us and to work with us. I just politely point out that the very good measures that she has outlined are measures that the Government and the strategy have been undertaking for many years, and we have still seen the decline continue. I encourage her to go back to her officials and press them for a timeline to regain elimination status and reach the WHO targets. If they are unwilling to put a target on that, I would suggest that perhaps they are not confident in the measures that they have so far been taking to achieve them, but I thank the Minister for her commitment to work with us.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered vaccination rates in England.
Global Biodiversity and Ecosystems: National Security
(1 day, 7 hours ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Adrian Ramsay (Waveney Valley) (Green)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the nature security assessment on global biodiversity loss, ecosystem collapse and national security, published in January 2026.
It is fantastic to see how many Members from across the House are here for this fundamental debate. Climate breakdown and nature security are the most immediate and severe national security threats of our age. The fundamentals of human existence—food, water, health—all depend on healthy, stable ecosystems.
If anyone still thinks that environmental breakdown is a distant concern, this year should dispel that notion. We have experienced the hottest year on record so far, with prolonged drought, extreme temperatures and wildfires, and we are likely to have the highest number of heat-related deaths ever, forcing Ministers to evaluate where our national resilience is falling short. As the National Heat Risk Commission report published today shows, the country’s leadership have failed to implement measures to protect lives from temperature rises that have been expected for more than a decade. The Climate Change Committee has estimated that temperatures will increase further in the near term. Extremes are projected to become the new normal, and annual heat-related deaths may reach 10,000.
This year’s super El Niño will cause further chaos to seasonal weather systems. The breakdown not only is an immediate risk to life, but is rapidly destabilising our natural systems. We talk about tipping points, and there could be no clearer demonstration than the glacial collapse in the Himalayas last month, which unleashed a catastrophic torrent into the river system. Thousands were tragically killed or remain missing. Since then, glaciers vulnerable to collapse are being mapped out, with millions potentially impacted by violent shifts in landscape and the disastrous loss of vital fresh water supplies.
Today, we are debating a crucial national security assessment report that warns of the rapid depletion of global biodiversity, the collapse of critical ecosystems and the dismantling of major global food systems. The origins of the report are unclear. Indeed, the only document made public is a redacted summary of the assessment, published after a freedom of information request from Green Alliance. What we do know is that the Joint Intelligence Committee co-ordinated that landmark work to measure the impact of global biodiversity loss and ecosystem collapse on our national security. That Committee is the authority on profiling risks to the country and our society—a group not of environmental campaigners, but of top-ranking specialists and experts from across the intelligence community, responsible for monitoring and providing early warning of threats to Britain.
Not only have the Government refused to publish the full version of the report, despite requests from Members of Parliament across parties and from the Environmental Audit Committee—of which, I declare, I am a member—but expert witnesses giving testimony before the Committee, including Lieutenant General Richard Nugee and Tony Juniper, the chair of Natural England, have noted that the report has not had the official Government response that one would expect for any seminal piece of work, let alone such a stark warning from our intelligence authorities.
However, we do have a redacted version of the document, and that is stark enough. The assessment conclusively states that global ecosystem collapse and the loss of biodiversity threaten national security, human life and economic prosperity. The assessment presents a world where cascading risks from climate breakdown lead to crop failures, water scarcity, floods and novel diseases. That would mean billions of people facing likely food shortages, inflation, public health risks, supply chain disruption, loss of livelihoods, mass displacement and conflict.
Ian Roome (North Devon) (LD)
A record hot summer has spread bluetongue disease among animals across my constituency at record rates, doing enormous damage to farming across the west country. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that one of the most alarming findings in the report is just how exposed the UK is to food insecurity?
Adrian Ramsay
I absolutely agree with the hon. Member. I will talk about food security later in my speech, but he is absolutely right to draw that point to our attention.
On the scale of the risks that we face, if this is not one of the gravest prevailing national security risks of our time, I do not know what is. Without systemic change at national and international level, we are on a pathway to the total collapse of globally critical ecosystems. The trajectory of the collapse means that it will come as soon as 2030 for some and 2050 for others.
Dr Rupa Huq (Ealing Central and Acton) (Lab)
Biodiversity loss in my own constituency has happened with Thames Water dumping sewage into the River Brent. I am glad that the clean water Bill will bring an end to that, but does the hon. Member agree that we need greater assurance that vital ecosystems that have been ravaged will be built back?
Adrian Ramsay
I absolutely agree that the impact is seen at a local level in all of our communities and that nature restoration is fundamental. We have to step up the pace of that, as I will go on to set out further.
The Joint Intelligence Committee has identified several degrading ecosystems, the destruction of which could be so severe that our own national security and prosperity will be in peril. Those include the tropical rainforests of the Amazon and the Congo Basin, the major river systems of the Himalayas, the richly productive and abundant south-east Asian coral reefs, the aquatic nurseries of the mangrove habitats and the stabilising force of the Arctic boreal forests.
That is why our national security cannot only be understood within our own borders. We cannot build a secure island in an insecure world. We must keep to our international obligations, such as the actions detailed in the global biodiversity framework to be reviewed next month at COP17. We can also no longer obfuscate on contributing to the Tropical Forest Forever Facility investment fund that the UK so proudly helped to set up.
Several hon. Members rose—
Adrian Ramsay
I give way to the hon. Member for Stirling and Strathallan (Chris Kane).
Chris Kane (Stirling and Strathallan) (Lab)
I thank the hon. Member. As a former journalist, I am acutely aware of the need to communicate the risks clearly, as do the many hundreds of my constituents who got in touch with me about this. As a member of the Public Accounts Committee, I highlight that the need to share knowledge and best practice within the devolved nations of the United Kingdom is incredibly important. Although we need to look at this as a worldwide endeavour, does the hon. Member agree that the way in which the devolved nations also share best practice and knowledge is important? If we do not get it right as the UK as a whole, we are already getting off on the wrong foot for getting it right across the world.
Adrian Ramsay
I agree that on nature, as on climate, leadership starts at home. The UK has a huge leadership role to play. That, of course, has to apply to devolved Government, regional government and local government. We need to make sure that governments at all levels are properly resourced, both for nature recovery and for climate resilience plans. The data that I have recently commissioned work on, and will be releasing soon, shows that we do not have the level of local resilience plans that are needed on this issue.
I think the hon. Member for Mid Derbyshire (Jonathan Davies) also wished to come in on the issue of the Tropical Forest Forever Facility.
Jonathan Davies (Mid Derbyshire) (Lab)
I thank the hon. Member for taking the intervention. Is he aware that the Government have announced this morning a £400 million loan to the Tropical Forest Forever Facility, and will he join me in welcoming that investment?
Adrian Ramsay
Absolutely. I welcome positive action wherever it happens. I have no problem at all in welcoming positive steps from the Government. I want to see more of them. I welcome the Minister, who is my constituency neighbour, to her place and look forward to her response to this debate. I want to be a constructive voice in this debate, and I very much welcome that news.
To some extent, countries with more resources like the UK can insulate citizens from the worst effects. Countries that are least able and most exposed to risks may not be able to do so, or to protect their communities from the full force of the impacts, which range from mass displacements to famine. For some of the most vulnerable countries, especially in the global south, water scarcity means famine, an impact on energy supplies and is likely to lead to the displacement and deaths of millions of people. Such instability is intensified further by competition for scarce resources and worsens cascading external risks to our own domestic national security.
Catherine Fookes (Monmouthshire) (Lab)
I thank the hon. Member for raising the big importance of the Joint Intelligence Committee report and shedding light on it. Does he agree that citizens must be brought up to speed on what they are facing with climate change? Does he agree that we must have a televised national emergency briefing across the UK?
Adrian Ramsay
I am grateful to the hon. Lady for making that point, and I completely agree. Like many Members in this Chamber, I signed the early-day motion calling for a national screening of the people’s emergency briefing. I know that a lot of Members will have hosted or attended screenings in their constituencies, as I have done. I have more coming up in my constituency in the coming weeks. It is incredibly powerful, even more powerful than the showing in November, because we can see how people are responding to that evidence. Of course, we need to look at the solutions as well as the problems, but I absolutely echo that call. I am interested in the Minister’s comments on the call for a national screening, so that we can be really clear on the scale of this challenge, which sadly does not get the same national profile as it did a few years ago. We need to increase that profile again.
Anna Dixon (Shipley) (Lab)
I was with the hon. Gentleman at the national emergency briefing, and like him I have many constituents to whom I am grateful for organising local screenings. Does he agree that climate change is not only an emergency, but a public health emergency? That is clear not only from the heat deaths in the UK, but the global impact on public health of water scarcity and the spread of malaria to new regions. Does he also agree that we should continue to support the likes of the World Health Organisation in efforts to tackle what is both a climate and public health emergency?
Adrian Ramsay
The hon. Lady is absolutely right: this is a public health issue. Organisations such as the World Health Organisation are clear on that, and it is clear from Natural England’s oral evidence to the Environmental Audit Committee yesterday. It is clear not only that there will be risks to public health if action is not taken but that nature as national security infrastructure can help with positive health outcomes, and we really need to embrace that as a country.
Nature is a foundational element of national security, and nature depletion, biodiversity loss, ecosystem collapse and climate breakdown are not merely environmental problems. Collectively, they will lead to the ruin of critical systems on which lives and livelihoods depend. We are no longer confronted by individual isolated incidents, events or extinctions. What lies ahead is whole-system collapse. As nature provides essential services that protect people, food, water and the economy, it is infrastructure—our most critical infrastructure—and should be treated as such.
James Naish (Rushcliffe) (Lab)
The Labour rural research group has just done a report on the future of the rural economy. One chapter looked at nature markets, which are going to be really important for rural economies because of how we should think about and value nature. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that for nature markets to work and evolve as quickly as is required, we need the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and the Government to put in place a clearer framework so that people know how they can invest in nature and biodiversity in the UK?
Adrian Ramsay
Like the hon. Gentleman, I represent a rural constituency, Waveney Valley in East Anglia, where I have done a lot to support and promote local solutions, including natural flood management landscape-scale projects to re-naturalise rivers, which brings significant environmental benefits. I know that the wildlife trusts and others are looking at things such as nature markets as part of the answer to that. I do not think that market forces are going to be anything like the majority of the solution to this problem. We would be kidding ourselves if we thought that was the case, but they could be part of the answer, as long as we are clear that the Government are setting out the direction and scale of ambition that is needed and the public funding goes in to make that possible. Crucially, companies must not be allowed to get away with trashing crucial ancient environments in one area by funding them in another. We need to be very careful about how we use those mechanisms in the right way. They could potentially be used as part of a wider mix.
Manuela Perteghella (Stratford-on-Avon) (LD)
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that if we are serious about tackling global biodiversity loss, we must ensure that commodities such as soya and palm oil entering the UK supply chain are not linked to deforestation and that UK trade and finance are not contributing to ecosystem destruction overseas?
Adrian Ramsay
I thank the hon. Lady for making that point. She is absolutely right that to protect crucial ecosystems internationally, our trade has to be fair and sustainable and that has to be embedded into farming policy. I am sure the Minister will pick up on that point as well.
Landscapes where ecosystems are compromised are more prone to natural disasters, such as drought, wildfires and flash floods. I say natural disasters, but those are often the results of decades of destructive policies and practices. Natural systems that reduce exposure to climate hazards are therefore part of our national resilience. We need to invest in adaptation now. Sustainable land management, for example, or harvesting and conserving water supplies, has become absolutely essential. The Climate Change Committee’s 2026 assessment makes the wider point clearly:
“Although climate risks are intensifying, the resulting damages are not inevitable. Proven and cost-effective adaptation measures are available for immediate deployment…Their implementation will be critical to protecting lives, infrastructure, and economic prosperity”.
Charlie Maynard (Witney) (LD)
I thank the hon. Member for his speech. Around Witney, 200 farmers are implementing a landscape recovery scheme. Only three such schemes have been implemented in the country. That one is on the Evenlode. Would it be helpful if the Minister said when the Government are going to bring forward the third round of landscape recovery schemes? We urgently need to be moving faster.
Adrian Ramsay
I absolutely agree. That is a strong example of one of the main points I want to make. The Minister will point to a number of welcome measures, but the question is whether the scale and pace of those measures are commensurate with the challenge. At the moment, they are a long way from being so. The funding that needs to be put in place for landscape recovery and the sustainable farming incentive is crucial. Farmers say to me all the time that they will get behind this as long as they can see a long-term funding framework for them to do so. One farmer in Suffolk said to me that he built a pond, which was crucial for natural flood management, in spite of the fact that it actually reduced his farm’s income. Most farmers are not going to be in a position to do that. That has to change.
Mr Jonathan Brash (Hartlepool) (Lab)
One of the other recommendations in the report was ensuring that at least 60% of food consumed in the UK is produced in the UK. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the only way we will ensure that is by protecting our farmers from the changes we are seeing in our climate?
Adrian Ramsay
Yes, that is crucial. With all the shocks that farmers are facing, we have seen that more protection and support are needed. The ambition needs to be a lot higher than 60% if we are to be resilient to the scale of geopolitical and environmental challenges that the world will be facing.
We should begin to plan and fund natural infrastructure with the same seriousness as engineered infrastructure. The assessment makes it clear that there is still a chance for major interventions to slow the trend, protect communities and restore national security, but only if we act now—in this Parliament—and at the scale that the crisis demands.
Edward Morello (West Dorset) (LD)
The hon. Gentleman is being extremely generous with his time. The Brit Valley Project in West Dorset is bringing together 43 landowners and will improve biodiversity over 4,000 acres. Every time I speak to community groups—I am sure other Members have examples of this—they want to see faster action. Does he share my frustration that politicians nationally and internationally are using the climate crisis and ignoring the science for their own political ends?
Adrian Ramsay
Yes, of course I share that frustration. I am pleased to see many Members, from lots of parties, in the Chamber for this debate. We need to increase those numbers and rebuild the national consensus we had on climate. I hope we can have such a consensus on nature restoration and climate adaptation. We all need to tackle the myths and make this debate less fractious and more about bringing people together than driving culture-war wedges. We can do that with how we put forward the solutions that are needed.
Nowhere in this debate are the threats clearer than with regard to food security. This year, water scarcity and drought threaten food production. As all of us representing rural constituencies will be aware, the UK’s agricultural sector has suffered three of the five worst harvests in the past decade, and this year will almost certainly add to that record.
Blake Stephenson (Mid Bedfordshire) (Con)
Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Adrian Ramsay
I will. I am being generous with interventions, which will mean we wait longer before we get to more speeches, but I trust that those intervening are conscious of that.
Blake Stephenson
The hon. Gentleman is being extremely generous, and I thank him for that. On food security, like many hon. Members with rural constituencies, I met farmers over the summer. Many told me that they want to build their own reservoirs and extract water dynamically from rivers so they can use that water when it is needed. Does he agree that that is a very simple regulatory change that the Government could make, which would support our farmers in adapting to climate change challenges?
Adrian Ramsay
I agree with the hon. Member; that is something that farmers in my constituency have raised with me frequently. There must be solutions to the growing problem of far too little water at some times of the year and far too much water at other times. The solution he outlines is part of how we seriously step up our water management work.
The UK imports around 40% of its food from overseas. Our over-reliance on global markets for food and fertiliser exposes the UK to supply shocks that could make the cost of living crisis much worse. Food security is not simply about producing more food; it is about the resilience of the entire system of agricultural production, including soils, water, fertiliser, feeds, distribution, international markets and the natural systems upon which they all depend. We also depend on international food markets, global supply chains and a stable international system, so protecting critical systems abroad is not simply an act of environmental justice; it is an investment in our own food security. [Interruption.] I hear you, Sir Desmond, but I have been very generous in the number of interventions I have taken. Had I not been so, there would be a much longer list of speeches for later, so I will persist for now.
There is still hope. The Joint Intelligence Committee assessment does not simply describe the threat; it identifies remedies, as it recognises that nature recovery strengthens resilience. Nature restoration and reducing human pressures on nature are both essential. We need to approach nature not as an environmental policy sitting outside national security policy, but as delivering national security benefits and integrated into all areas of policy.
The Government have levers to begin this wide-scale transformation, including fully funding the national tree plan; expanding the sustainable farming incentive; investing in natural flood management schemes such as river renaturalisation and wetland restoration; regenerating soil health to boost resilience for food production; restoring rivers and wetlands to rehabilitate freshwater habitat, flood protection and drought resilience; restoring peatlands for carbon storage and natural flood management; establishing more broadleaf woodland to enhance habitat for biodiversity and landscape-scale resilience; and converting to nature-friendly and climate-resilient farming. All those measures will contribute to maintaining the ecological functions on which we depend.
We need a stronger institutional approach to treating critical natural systems as national infrastructure and to establishing mechanisms to strengthen resilience and adaptation. That means recognising that healthy, natural systems are themselves a form of critical infrastructure.
On the question of transparency, Parliament should have full, unredacted access to the national security assessment as a matter of urgency, to scrutinise the evidence and ensure that our response as a nation is commensurate with the threats. If the Government want the public to become more resilient, the public must be trusted with the facts.
Historians will write about our decisions and future generations will judge us for them. They will recount how we knowingly gambled with global stability, the health of the natural world and the safety of human life and called it a growth agenda. As nature decline is a top-tier threat against the economy, weakening statutory protections and falling short of international obligations directly harms our economy and risks future prosperity. There is a temptation in politics to address environmental policy as an optional extra. The Government no longer have the luxury of time, and it would be a dereliction of duty by everyone in the House to disregard these warnings.
We need a Minister responsible for co-ordinating resilience to move from a managed decline approach to proactively investing in safeguarding for the future, because this is a cross-Government issue that needs to be addressed at scale. The Prime Minister has created a No. 10 for the north, but we need a No. 10 for the future, in the form of a dedicated climate protection unit in the Cabinet Office to drive the scale and pace of work required to restore nature and protect the public. Nature security is national security, and protecting the natural foundations of our country and our planet is ultimately protecting the security of life itself.
Sir Desmond Swayne (in the Chair)
There will be a formal two-minute time limit on speeches.
Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Your Party)
In two minutes, I will do my best, Sir Desmond.
I am proud to represent a very small urban area of Britain in which, over the years, we have managed to increase the number of parks and open spaces. Our council takes an assertive approach in encouraging school gardens and promoting an understanding among children of the need for biodiversity. If we are to win the debate about biodiversity, it will be by convincing people who live in urban areas, who often sadly have very little interaction with the natural world, and where children are brought up without any understanding of the natural world, gardens or growing anything.
A couple of weeks ago, I was talking to some children about hearing the cuckoo. Very sadly, none of them knew what a cuckoo was or had ever heard of one. I grew up in a country area where we had a competition over who heard the first cuckoo in spring. It is that sort of change in understanding that we have to bring about if we are to win this debate on biodiversity and sustainability on our planet.
The Government are pledged to the 30by30 target for the oceans. That is fine, and I absolutely agree with it, but the problem with delineating figures like that is that it does not tackle the problem of river pollution going into the seas and the dangerous chemicals that go with it, which do not disappear but instead remain forever. Designating part of an ocean as a marine protection zone does not protect the entirety of the ocean; all it does is designate that area. We have to address the wider issue, which is the pollution emanating from our towns, cities and industries into our rivers and the water companies that do not deal with it.
I have 13 seconds left, so I will simply say this: it is great that the House has come back to this issue and that so many Members want to speak today. We are beginning to reverse the downward trend in the environment debate in favour of a debate on real sustainability.
Mr Toby Perkins (Chesterfield) (Lab)
It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Desmond. I congratulate the hon. Member for Waveney Valley (Adrian Ramsay) on securing this debate. Today is an incredibly important opportunity to highlight the national security assessment on global biodiversity loss, ecosystem collapse and national security, in which Government intelligence authorities spell out a clear warning: environmental degradation is an existential threat to the UK’s national security.
I entirely support the Government’s commitment to ensuring that every penny of international aid is well directed, but in the context of General Nugee’s assessment that global biodiversity loss creates a national security risk here, we have to question whether the cuts to international climate finance and international aid can be justified any more. The report spells out the link between degradation overseas and the impact here. The assessment lays out the consequences: food insecurity, economic insecurity, increased migration and refugees, increased interstate competition, conflict and geopolitical instability, all of which will threaten us here at home. Experts told the Environmental Audit Committee that this means we must intervene internationally to halt and reverse environmental degradation.
I will conclude by saying three things to the minister. First, what specific actions have the Government taken since this assessment was completed? Secondly, I welcome the fact that the Government have joined other countries in investing in the Tropical Forest Forever Facility; it is absolutely fundamental to protecting us here at home. Thirdly, will the Minister consider bringing forward the fourth national adaptation programme? NAP3, published by the previous Government in 2023, was deemed ineffective by the Climate Change Committee. NAP4 is not due until 2028, but can we afford to wait two more years before we have an adequate plan?
Dr Ellie Chowns (North Herefordshire) (Green)
We have seen just recently what ecosystem collapse looks like: collapsing glaciers in the Himalayas and horrific loss of life on Nepal-Tibet border. We see what it looks like in the UK: the hottest ever summer and the worst ever arable harvest. Things are only going to get worse. This is clearly an issue of national security, and the security services themselves are raising the alarm, not just the environmentalists. We have to change course. Farmers in my constituency of North Herefordshire see this on a daily basis. We have to change the conversation about national security and recognise that it is not just about investment in weaponry and conflict, but about acknowledging the true, existential risk posed by climate change and ecosystem collapse, both in UK and across the world, as highlighted in this report.
It is disappointing that this short report had to be dragged out of the Government, kicking and screaming, and published only after a huge amount of pressure. Where is the evidence base underlying it? What are the Government afraid to share with us? Will the Government publish the full report and the evidence base that underlies it? If they will not, why not? Will they recognise that ecosystems are critical national infrastructure and have to be addressed as such? To echo a point made by the hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr Perkins), will the Government recognise that we cannot wait another few years for the national adaptation plan, given today’s announcement from the World Meteorological Organisation that climate change is supercharging natural phenomena such as El Niño, which will lead to even worse effects in the UK and globally than we saw this summer? Nature security is national security.
Samantha Dixon (Chester North and Neston) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Desmond. I congratulate the hon. Member for Waveney Valley (Adrian Ramsay) on securing this important debate.
Among G7 nations, the UK has the lowest remaining levels of biodiversity, which reduces our environment’s ability to support our society. However, it is possible to combat biodiversity loss and ecosystem collapse. The UK is privileged to be home to many world-leading zoos and conservation organisations—including, in my constituency, the wonderful and world-renowned Chester zoo—which have the expertise and experience in species conservation and habitat restoration to propel large-scale ecological recovery projects. I was pleased to learn of Chester zoo’s programme to reintroduce more than 100,000 critically endangered greater Bermuda land snails to the wild, saving the species from extinction, after a small surviving population was discovered in an air conditioning unit.
The efforts of such conservationists are essential to enriching ecosystems across the UK and the world, and we must strive to support them. Does the Minister agree that supporting our world-leading conservation sector is vital to ensure the UK’s long-term security and climate resilience?
Dr Danny Chambers (Winchester) (LD)
It has been well pointed out that biodiversity is not just a nice thing to have. As sad as it is to see species go extinct and to live in a less rich natural world, biodiversity is vital to our food security. In particular, pollinators can affect crop failure, and it is well documented that the number of insects and pollinators has been declining in the UK and around the world over the last few years.
In my limited time, I will highlight one reason for that, which I would like the Government to work with us on: the availability of pet flea and tick treatments over the counter in supermarkets. Some of those products, including fipronil and imidacloprid, are banned from agricultural use because they are considered to be too dangerous to the environment, yet they are available without a prescription or a check of the need for them. They are often used without any clinical need, so people regularly treat animals that do not need treatment with an inappropriate product. These products are being detected in waterways and chalk streams. They damage the entire ecosystem, especially insects and the salmon that live in chalk streams.
I have pressed the Government on this matter before, and the Veterinary Medicines Directorate is looking at it. This debate is about biodiversity. Allowing people to purchase in a supermarket products that are banned from agricultural use seems completely irresponsible and needs to be stopped.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Desmond. The national emergency, coupled with the national security assessment, makes it absolutely clear that the political landscape has to change locally, nationally and internationally. We need to change the geopolitical processes and fora through which these issues are discussed and acted on. Their insufficiency in the face of the emergency of our time dictates that we do that. Every conversation, policy and action must be oriented towards saving our planet.
The scale and pace of collapse mean that we have no choice, but we do have an opportunity if we can pull our country and our communities together and focus on our consumption—we consume the equivalent of 1.6 planets. We must also pull the nations together. We all live on this fragile planet, which is disintegrating before our eyes. This is an opportunity to reset the clock and get global and environmental stability. All nations much work together to save planet Earth. We are already seeing how intolerable it is, not least in the global south. It is coming our way too, so we cannot prevaricate, as we have over decades in the political space. We must now convene and act to stop the multifaceted risks we are seeing before our eyes, ensure that we stick to the Paris climate commitments and move faster. The disintegration and collapse of this planet is getting out of control. Will the Minister convene her colleagues for a new opportunity for geopolitical stability and, hopefully, save our planet?
Dr Roz Savage (South Cotswolds) (LD)
The threat is real. The assessment makes three judgments with high confidence: that global ecosystem collapse threatens UK national security and prosperity, that every critical ecosystem on earth is on a pathway to collapse and that those ecosystems include those that underpin global food production. Yet the accountability is non-existent. The assessment does not live within the climate change risk assessment, so no Minister has a legal duty to do anything about it. Under the previous national risk assessment, the Government named an owner for each of the 61 identified risks, but this one has none. Instead, everything the Government have offered in response to the national security assessment is discretionary.
The gaping hole in ownership is matched by one in funding. The Government’s own assessment places the annual value of ecosystem services to the UK at £87 billion, yet for every £100 of annual value that nature provides to us, public biodiversity spending is barely £1.20. We would not fund railways, hospitals or defence in this way. The choice is not between spending money on nature or saving money by ignoring the assessment, but between investing in resilience for our grandchildren or passing the considerable cost down to them when the consequences manifest. Yet it feels as if ignoring it is precisely what the Government intend to do. The report was published on the final day of a freedom of information internal review, after an initial refusal. It was pulled from a launch event. We still do not have the unredacted version.
I have three asks of the Minister. Who in Government owns this risk? When will the Government publish a cross-Government action plan in response to it? Will Ministers reconsider publication of the full assessment?
Matt Western (Warwick and Leamington) (Lab)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Waveney Valley (Adrian Ramsay) on securing the debate.
Nature is screaming at us. I spoke to farmers last week who told me just how alarmed they are at the situation. We have seen the wildfires, the droughts, the suffering of disease and the rupturing of glaciers, but as a society we are guilty of ignoring the environmental degradation around us. We live in the belief that the environment can somehow absorb these changes. I think it was 60 years ago that James Lovelock and Lynn Margulis came up with the Gaia theory. Most of us realise that the fact that we are losing species is contributing to the breakdown of our ecosystems. If it was an economic supply chain, we would be acting immediately.
Locally, about the equivalent of an Olympic-sized swimming pool of construction waste is dumped into Whitnash Brook every day. We cannot allow this kind of degradation to continue. As Chair of the Joint Committee on the National Security Strategy, I know that raising the matter of general resilience is crucial, and I look forward to the report from the National Resilience Committee in the Lords later this year.
The report produced by the Joint Intelligence Committee is significant. I believe it is as significant as the Stern report 20 years ago—it is a stand-out piece of work. It is critical that we listen and act for our environment, our economy, our food security and our health. Environmental resilience guarantees human resilience, and we must ensure that we restore and preserve our planet.
Brian Mathew (Melksham and Devizes) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Desmond. I thank the hon. Member for Waveney Valley (Adrian Ramsay) for proposing this important debate.
This year, in the midst of unnatural heatwaves and wildfires, I have so far attended five screenings across my constituency of the film on the national emergency briefing. It was heartening—but, at the same time, concerning—to see so many people of all ages coming together to agree on one thing: that something needs to be done about the environment and the impending disaster we are staring down. Those honest and open conversations are partly why I am so concerned that the Government have so far refused to publish in full the national security assessment. The public and Parliament deserve to see the full picture, especially on an issue with such significant implications for national security.
Over the summer I camped on the south coast, in Dorset, and it certainly felt and looked more like a scene out of Africa than the damp summer holidays I remember from my youth, but that is not something to celebrate. As the national emergency briefing makes clear, a halt to the gulf stream could lead to perishingly cold winters, as well as stifling summers. Elsewhere in the world, life itself may become intolerable, leading to many more climate refugees seeking to come to our shores.
The recent tragic events in Nepal resulting from climate-driven glacial collapse emphasise the consequences of inaction. We in the north, who invented the industrial revolution, which directly led to CO2 increases in the atmosphere, have a duty to find and implement solutions for the future of human—and, indeed, all—life on this beautiful planet Earth. Those solutions should not be seen as costs, but instead as the best investments that we and the whole world can profit from.
Barry Gardiner (Brent West) (Lab)
Sir Desmond, imagine that the top brains in the country’s security and intelligence community produced a report that told you how to save the world. You would want to see it, right? Well, the report we are discussing is not about how to save the world; it is about what happens if we do not. It is a sober assessment of the risks that global biodiversity loss and the consequent ecosystem collapse pose to our human security.
That is why we were never meant to see the report: the previous Administration considered that it was just too alarming. Economic insecurity will become more likely. Migration will rise as development gains reverse. Serious organised crime will look to exploit and gain control over scarce resources. Pandemic risks will increase. Conflict and military escalation will become more likely. The nuclear threat will rise as clashes between nuclear powers become more frequent. Those are the cold assessments of the Joint Intelligence Committee.
The Government were right to think that those assessments might scare people—they scare me—but they were wrong to think that they could hide them from the public. They were even more wrong to fail to make the case by setting out to the public the incredibly good news about how we can avoid those risks and create a world that looks much better than the one we currently inhabit. The convention on biological diversity COP coming up in Yerevan will look at the 23 targets of the global biodiversity framework, which set out the pattern for what we can do to change all this. What happens if we actually achieve them? Our air is cleaner, our water is purer, our energy is cheaper, our health is better, our economy is richer and our world is safer. What’s not to like?
Martin Wrigley (Newton Abbot) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Desmond. Like many Members, I have been inundated by constituents writing to me about this issue and explaining at great length their concerns about climate change and their fears for the future. The existential risk of ecosystem collapse and biodiversity loss at home and abroad is a common feature of those concerns.
Wildfires across Devon, as well as in Stourbridge, have caused a catastrophic loss of biodiversity. It is therefore no surprise that my constituents have told me that reading this biodiversity report has made them worry for the future. They fear what will happen to the world as a whole, and to our national security, if what is set out in the report is allowed to come true.
I have been consulting people across my constituency for many months to hear their concerns face to face, including by attending as many screenings as possible of the “People’s Emergency Briefing”, which I encourage the Minister to see. I also held a local climate assembly with my constituents, which was an important step in hearing how I can work with them to share their concerns, and how we can work together on long-term and sustainable solutions to biodiversity and ecosystem collapse, albeit only locally.
The report makes for very worrying reading. One constituent told me that the briefing went “far beyond” anything she had “feared for the future”, and that she was frightened by the real and imminent global risks that we face from climate change and biodiversity loss. Although the report is a worst-case scenario, about what could happen without action, the very suggestion that this is a possibility should worry us all.
Richard Foord (Honiton and Sidmouth) (LD)
We both live near the University of Exeter, and Professor Neil Adger has talked about the risks and limits of a securitisation framing of nature and biodiversity, and the idea that this is a global problem of our biosphere but not a national security problem. What does my hon. Friend think? Does he see this as a people’s emergency or a national emergency?
Martin Wrigley
I think that this is an emergency on every level: it is a local, regional, national, international and global emergency, which is happening in the climate and in biodiversity at the same time. That is why we need action now.
The report mentions making radical change to farmland usage, but farmers need Government support for that. I recently discussed the issue with a constituent who has great knowledge of sustainable farming initiatives. He proposed a joined-up approach, with farmers working together on a 1000-acre challenge to research and develop sustainable farmland programmes. That is the kind of initiative that we must be developing now, before it is too late, and I urge the Minister to work on it.
I hope the Minister will listen to the concerns that I and many other colleagues have raised today and take urgent action to protect our ecosystems and promote sustainability globally for years to come.
Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)
Following the heatwaves and wildfires across Europe this summer and the destruction caused by the glacier collapse and catastrophic flooding in Nepal and Tibet, the message is becoming impossible to ignore: the consequences of climate change and environmental degradation are real, not some distant future threat.
As the national security risk assessment says, climate change, biodiversity loss and ecosystem disruption pose risks not just for the environment but for our economy, security and way of life. Climate and nature shocks are arriving faster, harder and more systematically than many of our economic systems were designed to handle.
We see that in four main ways: physical risks, including floods, wildfires, droughts and storms; transition risks as economies move away from high-carbon industries; nature-related risks affecting food production and natural resources; and systemic risks, where shocks spread rapidly across sectors and markets.
For many years, conversations about green finance primarily focused on corporate social responsibility. Today, they are equally about resilience and risk management. The UK is well placed to lead on that, but I fear that we are not doing as much as we could be.
I am vice-chair of the all-party parliamentary group on Tibet. What is happening in the Himalayas and the Tibetan plateau is one of the clearest examples of climate risk unfolding today. The glaciers of the third pole function as Asia’s water tower, feeding major river systems that support nearly 2 billion people. When rising temperatures accelerate glacial melt, the consequences extend far beyond the mountains. This is not simply an environmental catastrophe; it is about infrastructure resilience, water and energy security, as well as economic stability across the entire region. It is entirely the kind of systemic risk that modern resilience finance should help countries to anticipate and manage.
I conclude by asking the Minister this: who will be attending COP17, and will we make sure we show leadership on global resilience there?
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Sir Desmond. I thank the hon. Member for Waveney Valley (Adrian Ramsay) for setting the scene.
We must not overlook the fact that nature security is national security. As a person of faith—as you are, Sir Desmond—I am guided by the profound principle of stewardship. We have a God-given responsibility to tend this Earth, protect creation and hand it down to our children—and, in my case, to my grandchildren.
The global statistics are eye-opening. We have seen a decline in monitored wildlife populations over the last 50 years. This is not just an issue for conservationists, but an existential threat to global stability that is unravelling the complex biological safety net that regulates our climate, purifies our water and pollinates our crops. Biodiversity loss accelerates climate breakdown, destroys agricultural land and creates resource scarcity. When water runs dry, crops fail in vulnerable regions and conflict inevitably follows.
In my constituency of Strangford, the hard-working farmers, fishing sector and conservationists support our rich biodiversity, which supports local economies and resilience. Right across Strangford we are seeing superb frontline stewardship work being done on the ground. We are adopting nature-friendly farming practices, and local conservation projects are working tirelessly to protect native species and restore vital peatlands, which act as crucial carbon sinks. We cannot allow environmental protections to become an unaffordable luxury or an undue tax burden on the very people keeping our communities afloat.
I have one question for the Minister, who I wish well, by the way—she has quite an endurance test today. I urge her to outline how the Government are integrating nature risk into our strategic defence frameworks. We need a comprehensive national nature security assessment that backs the brilliant stewardship we see in Strangford while strictly safeguarding the financial resilience of our hard-pressed farmers.
Sarah Dyke (Glastonbury and Somerton) (LD)
It is an honour to serve with you in the Chair, Sir Desmond. I congratulate the hon. Member for Waveney Valley (Adrian Ramsay) on securing this important debate.
Disappointingly, this heavily abridged report did not reach the Chamber in Government time, and when it was finally released, the timing coincided with Davos, which dominated the headlines. That raises questions about how seriously this Government take the warning from their own report that nature is a foundation of national security and can no longer be treated in isolation from it.
Olly Glover (Didcot and Wantage) (LD)
My hon. Friend makes a very good point about the seriousness of this issue. Does she agree that a great way for the Government to show they understand that seriousness would be to publish the report in full and agree to a national broadcast and a national emergency briefing?
Sarah Dyke
I wholeheartedly agree. The report describes a collapse of interconnected natural systems reaching a point of no return—the loss of climate regulation destroying harvests in the world’s breadbasket regions, triggering famine, disease and mass migration, driving up food prices and poverty here in the UK. With 77% of land in England and Wales farmed or managed by farmers, and more than 800 farms in my constituency of Glastonbury and Somerton alone, we already know who would be best placed to lead our investment in long-term biodiversity resilience.
Dr Scott Arthur (Edinburgh South West) (Lab)
The hon. Lady makes a really good point. When I speak to farmers in Edinburgh South West, they often feel that they are the problem when it comes to protecting biodiversity; in fact, they are the solution. We should be doing all we can to support the Government to support farmers to help protect our environment.
Sarah Dyke
I absolutely agree, which brings me to my next point. As Martin Lines of the Nature Friendly Farming Network puts it, healthy soils and water functioning as good systems should be treated as critical national infrastructure. He argues for more spongy landscapes, healthier soils, wetlands, ponds and trees that hold water, buffering both drought and flooding, while still supporting food production.
With DEFRA budget cuts slashing the farming budget by more than £100 million and uncertainty over future support systems, many are disincentivised from the environmental role that their own survival depends on. We know that nature-friendly farming can bring real ecological improvement.
The Lang Partnership in Curry Rivel has proudly championed regenerative and nature-friendly farming methods for more than 30 years, showing what is possible when farmers are committed to working with nature rather than against it, but this needs widespread adaption and adoption to work.
The environmental land management scheme should be a vital road map to a resilient farming sector, but there has been a lack of investment in higher-tier schemes that will deliver the best outcomes for nature. That is why the Liberal Democrats would invest an additional £1 billion—a cash injection—into the farming budget, properly phased to target where it helps nature the most and to help farmers to boost food security, rather than allowing them to fall through the gaps.
Terry Jermy (South West Norfolk) (Lab)
There are a number of rare and unique landscapes across the country, such as the Brecks in my own constituency. Does the hon. Lady support calls for increased funding for specific landscapes impacted by climate change and biodiversity loss?
Sarah Dyke
I agree with my hon. Friend—I call him that as he sits on the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee with me.
This summer’s drought has put farmers under severe financial pressure. A potato farmer in my constituency, James Pullen of Perrins Hill Farm in Tintinhull, told me that he expects to be £200,000 down on his potato sales this year. In a good year, his crop averages around 25 tonnes to the acre, but this year it will be closer to 20 tonnes, with potatoes badly bruised or simply failing to grow.
I am grateful for the recently announced drought support for farmers, but we need real action that prevents ecosystem collapse and the heightened risk that that poses for our food security. We also need investment to hold water on farm reservoirs and fire ponds—nature-based solutions to water scarcity that will irrigate the land during prolonged drought and help communities to battle wildfires. However, farm reservoirs are not being built quickly enough to meet demand, as they are being held back by abstraction licences, planning permission, cost implications, uncertain grants and limited contractor availability.
Sarah Dyke
I will not, if the hon. Lady does not mind, because I have quite a lot to get through.
I recently visited Wessex Water’s constructed wetland at Shapwick Heath in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Wells and Mendip Hills (Tessa Munt). At 21 hectares, it is the largest water treatment wetland of its kind in the UK, filtering forever chemicals, phosphates and microplastics from our water, while boosting flood resilience and supporting Somerset’s biodiversity. Wessex Water is currently upgrading its sewage treatment plant, which will remove 170 tonnes of phosphates over the next 10 years. To put that into context, the 18,000 homes across Somerset that are currently stuck in a planning moratorium due to the nutrient neutrality regulations would produce only 3 tonnes of phosphate. That clearly demonstrates what nature-based solutions can bring to the future of water management and nutrient neutrality.
Somerset is increasingly exposed to devastating flooding that impacts farmers and homeowners alike. I was really happy to secure £50 million of flood defence funding for Somerset earlier this year, and I welcome Somerset council agreeing to ringfence some of those funds to target nature-based solutions that work in conjunction with hard engineering river maintenance across high-risk catchments, restoring natural hydrology upstream while protecting communities and infrastructure downstream. I am also pleased that a major element of the programme will be the council’s “My Community” programme, empowering local communities with bespoke, bureaucracy-cutting support and creating shared action on the ground.
Peatlands like those in the Somerset levels and moors provide vital species habitats, flood alleviation and water filtration, yet across the UK over 80% of peatlands are damaged. Somerset is one of only two counties still extracting peat, with licences to 2042 despite the levels and moors storing an estimated 11 million tonnes of carbon, which is equivalent to 10 years of the county’s emission. My Horticultural Peat (Prohibition of Sale) Bill sought to end the sale of peat, building on local efforts that are already under way, with companies such as Durstons near Street and RocketGro growing peat-free compost ranges. I congratulate the Minister on her new role, but I would be grateful for clarity on peat issues. Will there be a dedicated funding scheme for peatland restoration once the nature for climate peatland grant scheme ends next year? Will she go further and provide a timeline on when the Government will seek to end the sale of horticultural peat?
Habitat destruction also impacts insect life. For example, the shrill carder bee, which is one of the UK’s rarest bumblebees, has retreated from its historic stronghold on the Somerset levels and moors to a depleting population around Somerton, Castle Cary and Ham Hill. Its numbers have collapsed from around 140 in 2015 to just seven in 2022. Only five of 22 biodiversity indicators show long-term improvement, and 13 are still deteriorating. Does the Minister accept that the Government’s current approach is failing to meet their own Environment Act targets? What new action will change that trajectory?
Central to this failure to protect habitats is planning policy. The Government must adopt a strategic spatial approach to planning that protects the UK’s most important places for nature, which would support, not undermine, environmental regulation and champion nature-friendly design in house building and infrastructure from the outset. That is why the Liberal Democrats opposed and voted against Labour’s Planning and Infrastructure Act 2025.
If the Government are expecting 75,000 of their 1.5 million homes target to be delivered in Somerset, they must be fit for the future. I visited Bradfords Building Supplies in Glastonbury recently to discuss exactly this: how we make homes resilient to a changing climate, and how we prepare for extreme heat in summer and flooding in winter, including by making sustainable drainage systems mandatory in new developments. We cannot keep building homes for yesterday’s climate; Government planning policy needs to catch up.
Sarah Dyke
I will not, just because of time.
We are also calling for the loopholes in the biodiversity net gain system to be closed, for the extension of how long a net gain habitat must be maintained from 30 years to 120 years, and for raising the requirement for major developments on larger greenfield sites from 10% to 100%. The case could not be starker. The Green Finance Institute puts the potential economic hit from nature degradation at the equivalent of 12% of GDP. That is more than twice the impact of the 2008 financial crash.
To conclude, this report was published in January. Half a year on, we have already seen the devastation that this year’s climate crisis has brought to the UK. Will the Minister confirm whether DEFRA and the Joint Intelligence Committee will reclassify the food security risk as high, publish the full assessment as originally intended, and act with the urgency it deserves, including through an annual climate and nature statement to Parliament?
Dr Neil Hudson (Epping Forest) (Con)
It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Desmond. I congratulate the hon. Member for Waveney Valley (Adrian Ramsay) on bringing forward this important debate, and I welcome the Minister to her place. I would normally go through some of the powerful contributions we have had today, but it would take all my allocated time to namecheck everyone’s constituencies. Basically, the take-home message has been the importance of protecting our precious planet from the existential threats that we face from climate change.
Protecting biodiversity and ecosystems is very close to our hearts and the hearts of our constituents, and it is crucial to national security. As the MP for Epping Forest, I am privileged to see and experience the many benefits of biodiversity in our ancient woodland and beyond. As the heart and lungs of north-east London and our part of Essex, Epping Forest hosts 55,000 ancient and veteran trees and is home to 10 bat species, nine native reptile and amphibian species, over 15,000 fungal species and 28 butterfly species. I want the flora and fauna of Epping Forest and more widely to flourish and thrive, yet water security, air quality and climate change—to name just three risks—threaten biodiversity and ecosystems domestically and globally. That is why the report we are debating today is an important wake-up call.
The last Conservative Government’s Environment Act 2021 established legally binding targets, including to increase species abundance, so that by 2042 it is greater than 2022 and at least 10% greater than 2032, and to restore or create more than 500,000 hectares of wildlife-rich habitats outside protected sites by 2050. Our Conservative environment improvement plan built on that Act, committing to protect 30% of our land and our sea by 2030. Supporting the COP15 global target, we agreed to protect 30% of global land and global ocean.
The security assessment we are debating, published by the current Government in January this year, outlined the immense risk that biodiversity loss and ecological degradation is having and will continue to have unless we take action. It was disappointing that it took an FOI request from the Green Alliance for the Government to publish the report in this abridged form. It is clearly something that the Government do not want us to see in full. Will the Minister say what the Government’s plans are for letting us see it in full?
Turning to what was published, the report looks at global factors, such as food supply chains, but it is important that the Government’s approach to supporting biodiversity and ecosystems is not siloed between action abroad and action domestically, but is instead a joint approach. International action to address biodiversity must not solely sit within the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, but must be co-ordinated with DEFRA and tie into the UK’s domestic agenda to boost supply chains and ecosystems here.
The report identified biodiversity loss and ecosystem collapse as a national security threat. We must all keep that at the forefront of our minds. This debate considers national security and keeping the UK—our families, homes and livelihoods—safe. National security should always be the first and foremost duty of any Government. One of the reasons the threats identified in the report are different from some other national security threats is the unpredictable behaviour of some natural events, such as the extreme weather events we are seeing both in the UK and globally—we have heard that point powerfully articulated today.
In the UK this summer, we have experienced one of the worst droughts in history. Over two-thirds of England —approximately 71%—was in drought following the driest July since 1836. In my constituency, the extreme heat facing the rest of the country was made worse by thousands of my constituents being left without running water this summer for about a week due to unacceptable Thames Water outages for several days. They faced hours of long queues for bottled water or waited anxiously for priority service delivery, with little certainty that they would receive any at all. With warmer summers expected as the norm, I would appreciate it if the Minister assured mine and everyone’s constituents that the Government are taking steps to ensure that they are integrating planning for warm weather into the very heart of our water industry’s operations, so that our constituents are not left exposed in such a vulnerable position in future.
The Government should also be supporting farmers to adapt to the impact of climate change, biodiversity loss and increasing market volatility. Sadly, the Government have voted for the family farm tax and the fertiliser tax. That is very pertinent to today’s debate, with the report touching on UK fertiliser resilience. There is also the double-cab pick-up tax and increased national insurance contributions for employers. All those actions have not only caused serious economic and cash-flow problems for farmers; they have also damaged job opportunities for young people coming into agriculture.
Why is this so important? Our fantastic farmers are custodians of approximately 70% of the UK’s land. Failing to support farmers is failing to support nature and biodiversity in the UK, which is both unforgivable and incredibly short-sighted. Farmers are pivotal to UK food security. The report says:
“Without significant increases in UK food system and supply chain resilience, it is unlikely the UK would be able to maintain food security if ecosystem collapse drives geopolitical competition for food.”
Therefore, once again, and in a sadly recurring theme, when this current Government should be supporting our family farms to help feed the nation and bolster our food security, there has been a record number of farm closures.
Sadly, when it comes to biosecurity, which is intrinsically linked to our food security, yet again the current Government have been slow throughout their tenure. I needed to ask 17 times in Parliament before they provided anything close to the money needed to complete the rebuild of the Animal and Plant Health Agency’s headquarters. They also continue to preside over an illegal meat import crisis at our borders.
In the last couple of years, Europe has seen foot and mouth disease, and African swine fever is also advancing up the continent. As we have heard in this debate and this morning’s statement, bluetongue virus is surging in the UK and poses a specific threat in the context of climate change. The virus is rapidly multiplying in the midge vector, the range of which is advancing northwards. Leaving us exposed to those threats is reckless.
The report we are debating is a much-needed wake-up call to the Government, who sadly seem to be asleep at the wheel. A report of this kind should have prompted an immediate response, yet we have seen in DEFRA that this Government do not seem to move with speed. That must change.
I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response to the points made today. However, more than anything, I would like a guarantee that there will be co-ordination across Government to bolster ecosystems internationally and in the UK. DEFRA must play a leading role in this work. I really hope that the Prime Minister was misspeaking in his comment yesterday about how he rates DEFRA among Government Departments. DEFRA should be at the heart of Government in protecting and feeding our country and looking after our precious environment. I would appreciate it if the Minister could confirm that.
Co-ordinated policy also needs us to be using every tool at our disposal. I urge the Government to recognise the important role that zoos play in conservation, as we also heard from the hon. Member for Chester North and Neston (Samantha Dixon). Zoos such as Chester and London, through species reintroduction and habitat restoration, do so much to help fight species decline. They need to be used to our full advantage to meet biodiversity targets.
In conclusion, when ecosystem degradation is occurring across all regions of the globe and, as the report states, the world could be on a path towards
“geopolitical instability, economic insecurity, conflict, migration and increased inter-state competition for resources”
the Government must not stand and sit idle. I ask them to act.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Jenny Riddell-Carpenter)
I congratulate my constituency neighbour, the hon. Member for Waveney Valley (Adrian Ramsay) on securing this incredibly important debate. I also thank hon. Members for their powerful and thoughtful contributions. I am very aware that many did not get the time to make the contributions that they would have liked to make. In the interests of time, I will not be taking interventions, but I am more than happy for Members to write to me after the debate and I will get back to them in writing.
I will start by addressing the point made by the hon. Member for Waveney Valley about the status of the assessment and the material behind it, and I know that issue has been raised by a number of Members from across the House. As my predecessor, my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry East (Mary Creagh), outlined in some detail to the hon. Member for Waveney Valley in a session of the Environmental Audit Committee in July, it is standard and given practice that the Government do not comment on speculation about different drafts or versions. That position has not changed as I stand here today, nor will it likely change tomorrow. With that in mind, it is far more important that I focus my response on the critical themes raised in the debate.
Publishing the assessment was clearly vital, so that Parliament, the public and our international partners can see its core findings. Those findings are clear: biodiversity loss and ecosystem degradation pose a real risk to security, resilience and prosperity. We cannot, and this Government will not, shy away from the real challenges that creates. Climate change is one of the biggest challenges of our time, and this Government are the first to lead this country with both a Climate Minister and a Nature Minister. That reflects how seriously this Government take climate change and nature security.
I have long said that net zero and nature are two sides of the same coin when it comes to tackling climate change. The assessment highlights the critical role that nature plays in our ability to tackle the climate crisis. Of course, we cannot fight this greatest challenge alone, and many hon. Members raised that point. Climate change and nature do not abide by rules or borders. Working to implement the advice raised through the assessment requires leadership at home and abroad, working with our international partners to strengthen food security, biosecurity, global supply chain resilience and international co-operation.
As many hon. Members highlighted, the findings of the assessment are stark. Global ecosystem degradation and collapse threaten UK national security and prosperity. That is not an environmental issue alone; it is a systemic risk to the UK’s resilience and long-term security, as many hon. Members articulated. The UK’s food security and economic resilience depend on healthy ecosystems at home and overseas. Nearly 40% of our food is imported, and for as long as we continue to enjoy bananas, rice, kiwis and avocados, we will never realistically be able to rely on domestic food production alone. That means we are at heightened risk of environmental pressures overseas disrupting our supply chains, increasing prices and reducing resilience in the UK.
That is not an isolated finding. The World Economic Forum’s “Global Risks Report 2026” identified extreme weather as the most severe global risk over the next decade, with environmental risks accounting for five of the 10 highest-ranked long-term risks. The nature security assessment suggests that domestic nature-related risk could reduce UK GDP by around 6% by the 2030s, with a further 6% reduction arising from international risks transmitted through global supply chains in some scenarios. The conclusion of our assessment is extraordinarily clear and should leave no one in any doubt: nature security is national security, and nature stability is global stability.
Responsible Governments identify emerging risks early, strengthen preparedness and build resilience before shocks occur. This Government are determined to rise to that responsibility. Other political parties may tell people simply to sit back and enjoy a rapidly changing climate, as we heard over the summer from Reform. However, we will not give up on tackling these threats head-on or put our head in the sand, as others in Opposition sadly seem determined to do.
It is important to stress that the assessment is neither a forecast nor a prediction. It is a forward-looking assessment designed to help the Government to plan for potential shocks, such as disruption to food systems, supply chains and economic stability, that are credible enough to warrant preparation. Its purpose is to help us to anticipate those risks, test our resilience and take appropriate action. That is exactly what the assessment does: it looks around corners rather than relying on the rear-view mirror. It is worth stressing that, via the assessment, the UK is doing something important that other countries are not. By creating, publishing and debating the assessment, we are a global frontrunner in discussing nature security.
Our assessment is the first published national security assessment of its kind in the world. After we published it, the UK’s presentations at the OECD resulted in several global partners using our approach to understand and consider how ecosystem-related risks affect their own resilience and national security. Later this month, the Foreign Secretary will bring Foreign Ministers together at the United Nations to discuss how to respond to climate and nature security threats. The assessment will provide an important evidence base for those conversations.
I recognise that this is a critical juncture for nature. We will continue to use upcoming international opportunities to make the case that protecting nature and tackling climate change must go hand in hand, because healthy ecosystems underpin resilience, security and prosperity.
Turning to this Government’s response, we have launched the first ever taskforce on the national security and resilience risks of a changing climate and nature loss, bringing together leading security, military and academic experts to help us to identify and prioritise risks, strengthen cross-Government co-ordination and turn evidence into practical action. The taskforce, launched in June this year, provides independent challenge and recommendations to ensure that climate and nature risks are considered more systemically across national security and resilience planning.
Separately, we have commissioned a three-year nature security research and development programme to improve indicators, early warning capability and analytical tools. That will help the Government to identify emerging risks earlier, stress-test resilience and take preventive action before disruption escalates.
A number of hon. Members on both sides of the House spoke about the importance of the food sector to national security and the functioning of the UK, which the Government have recognised by designating it as critical national infrastructure. DEFRA works closely with the Cabinet Office and other Government Departments to strengthen preparedness and resilience across the food system and supply chains. We are also investing more than £2.7 billion a year in farming and nature recovery, supporting resilient domestic food production, healthier soils, pollinators and nature-friendly farming.
The nature security assessment makes it clear that severe ecosystem degradation can contribute to the emergence of novel zoonotic diseases. We are acting to bring down the risks that that poses, strengthening resilience to those risks through the UK biological security strategy, enhanced disease surveillance and a one-health approach that recognises the links between environmental, animal and human health. That improves our ability to identify, assess and respond to emerging biological threats.
This Government are also addressing nature-related risks at source through the international climate finance programme. Climate markets and green finance were mentioned by several hon. Members during the debate. The UK’s international climate finance strategy places nature at its core, investing in the protection and restoration of forests, oceans, freshwater and other critical ecosystems that support global stability.
It was mentioned right at the beginning, but I am delighted to confirm that today the Government have announced that they intend to invest £400 million in the Tropical Forest Forever facility. The TFFF represents a critical evolution in forest finance, providing long-term support for tropical forest protection. I am sure hon. Members recognise that investing in forests is one of the most effective ways to tackle the climate and nature crisis and to support UK growth and security.
As hon. Members across the House have acknowledged, the nature security assessment has made it clear that nature loss can impact food security, water security, economic resilience and national security. We are taking those findings seriously. There is no single Department that can address them alone, and that is why we are working across Government to ensure a co-ordinated response. These are global challenges, but they are being felt close to home. The recent wildfire at Dunwich Heath in Suffolk was in my constituency, and it was a stark reminder to me that the environmental risks are no longer distant or abstract, and that we must build resilience here in the UK as well as overseas.
We have restored nearly 23,000 hectares of peatland since 2020 to store carbon. I was delighted to visit my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire Dales (John Whitby) recently to look at the work that the UK is doing to restore and invest in our peatlands. That work plays a vital role not just in managing and restoring nature but in helping to tackle the threat of wildfires. Such work, which is in addition to supporting farmers through nature-friendly farming schemes and delivering our environmental improvement plans, means we are taking practical action at home alongside our international efforts abroad.
I again thank the hon. Member for Waveney Valley for securing this important debate and the continued interest of the House in this agenda.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered the nature security assessment on global biodiversity loss, ecosystem collapse and national security, published in January 2026.
Written Correction
(1 day, 7 hours ago)
Written CorrectionsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Other Correction
(1 day, 7 hours ago)
Written CorrectionsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Andrew George
Community Pharmacies
The following extract is from the debate on Community Pharmacies on 2 June 2026.
Andrew George
We are also witnessing troubling behaviour in the sector. Some large corporate pharmacy chains are redirecting patients to independent pharmacies for medicines that are above tariff, incorrectly stating that those medicines are unavailable when in reality they are unwilling to supply them because of the financial loss involved.
[Official Report, 2 June 2026; Vol. 786, c. 93WH.]
Written correction submitted by the hon. Member for St Ives (Andrew George):
Andrew George
We are also witnessing troubling behaviour in the sector. Allegations have been put to me that some large corporate pharmacy chains are redirecting patients to independent pharmacies for medicines that are above tariff, incorrectly stating that those medicines are unavailable when in reality they are unwilling to supply them because of the financial loss involved.
Written Statements
(1 day, 7 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Warner Bros. Discovery: Proposed Acquisition by Paramount
(1 day, 7 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (Lisa Nandy)
On 30 June 2026, my Department wrote to Paramount and Warner Bros. Discovery on my behalf, informing them under the Enterprise Act 2002 public interest regime that I was minded to intervene in the proposed merger between the two companies, and I issued a written ministerial statement setting this out, which is available at: https://questions-statements.parliament.uk/written-statements/detail/2026-06-30/hcws162
The parties were given the opportunity to make representations to me by 6 July in response to my concerns. Paramount put forward a set of assurances, seeking to address the issues I raised. These assurances included a range of commitments on future investment in the UK, maintaining the distinct editorial identities of key services, and the editorial independence of news. Following further discussions with DCMS officials, Paramount offered to strengthen those assurances and turn them into legally binding commitments by way of a “deed of undertaking” made in my favour.
On 6 August, the Competition and Markets Authority announced its decision that there are no competition aspects of this proposed merger in the UK that necessitate its further intervention.
In parallel, after careful consideration, I decided not to issue a public interest intervention notice, on the basis that the assurances and further legally binding commitments I secured from Paramount provide a set of protections that will help safeguard the continued availability of a diverse range of broadcasting and on-demand services in the UK; the continuation of their distinct editorial identities; and the distinct editorial identities of key UK news programmes. Paramount has committed to providing me with annual statements of compliance with the undertakings in the deed, and DCMS will closely monitor their implementation. In the circumstances, I have decided to accept the deed and have informed the parties of my decision. A copy of my public statement issued on 6 August, the letter of assurances from Paramount and the deed can be found on gov.uk here: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/public-statement-proposed-acquisition-of-warner-bros-discovery-by-paramount-decision-of-no-intervention-on-public-interest-intervention-or-foreign-sta
Having made this decision and informed the parties, I made a public statement on 6 August, and wish to formally update Parliament of my decisions, now that it has returned from summer recess.
I have made this decision based on the specific powers currently available to me under the Enterprise Act 2002, which only relate to matters concerning the UK broadcasting and news media landscape. As set out in the “Watch this Space” Green Paper published on 23 June, the media sector is undergoing a profound and rapid transformation. I believe it is of the utmost importance to protect plurality, diversity and distinct British voices across our wider creative industries, including film, and I share the concerns about the impact consolidation could have on the UK’s creative industries.
I have met with Paramount CEO David Ellison to obtain specific assurances about the impact of this proposed deal on film outputs and diversity of content. I look forward to continuing to work with both Paramount and sector leaders to ensure that our world-leading creative industries feel real benefits as a result of these discussions. Beyond this, as set out in my public statement, I am also considering all avenues to ensure the Government have the ability to protect plurality, diversity and British content when it is under threat.
Video on demand services
In my previous written ministerial statement, I noted that should I decide to intervene in this case, I would bring forward secondary legislation to amend the plurality of control public interest consideration set out in the Enterprise Act, to enable Ofcom to examine the impact of the proposed acquisition on video on demand services. While DCMS will no longer be bringing forward secondary legislation in relation to this specific merger, I may do so in future, given the role on demand viewing now plays in the market.
Foreign state influence regime
Having considered the proposed merger under the statutory foreign state influence regime, I have concluded that I do not have reasonable grounds to suspect that my duty to issue a foreign state intervention notice has arisen. I am therefore currently not minded to intervene in this case. I will reassess the position if any new information comes to light suggesting otherwise.
[HCWS309]
Gamebirds: Call for Evidence
(1 day, 7 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Jenny Riddell-Carpenter)
My noble Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State in the Lords (Baroness Hayman of Ullock) has made the following written statement:
As set out in the land use framework and the animal welfare strategy for England, the Government committed to strengthening the evidence base on gamebird rearing, release and shooting in England.
I am today announcing that a call for evidence will launch on 4 September 2026 as the next step in delivering that commitment.
Gamebird rearing, release and shooting are established activities within rural land use and management. They can contribute to rural economies and land management, but their environmental, animal health, animal welfare and wider impacts are not yet fully understood. The call for evidence will gather information and evidence to improve understanding of both the positive and negative impacts associated with these activities.
The call for evidence will consider the rearing of gamebirds, the release of reared birds from captivity, associated shooting and land management activities, and impacts at local, regional and national level. It will seek evidence on biodiversity, protected sites and habitats, biosecurity and disease, bird of prey crime, animal welfare, use of natural resources, and other relevant environmental or social impacts.
Evidence gathered through this exercise will be carefully reviewed, including by independent external reviewers for information on release and shooting. This will support DEFRA’s understanding of these activities and their impacts and inform any future policy development. No decisions have been taken at this stage on whether to introduce any changes, and any future proposals would be subject to public consultation.
The call for evidence will be published on gov.uk and will be open for responses until 1 November 2026.
[HCWS308]
Statement of Changes in Immigration Rules
(1 day, 7 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Jo White)
My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary is today laying before the House a statement of changes in immigration rules.
Changes to “Appendix Skilled Worker” to support victims of modem slavery
The sponsorship system is designed to ensure that overseas recruits have a genuine job to come to, that they will be paid appropriately, and that they can enjoy their employment rights. However, we have seen instances of skilled worker visa holders who entered the UK in good faith, complied with the terms of their visa and have experienced exploitation. This is simply unacceptable. Our crackdown on rogue employers continues and this includes taking action against sponsors who have exploited or enslaved their workers. To date, UK Visas and Immigration has revoked more than 7,500 sponsor licences, including 1,800 in the care sector alone. But we recognise that there is more to be done to ensure that victims are protected and supported by our immigration system, as set out in the immigration White Paper.
To ensure that victims of exploitation do not face further vulnerabilities, the changes we are making now allow victims who entered the UK legally and have been recognised as victims of modern slavery to undertake work in any occupation for the remaining duration of the visa validity. This incentivises victims to come forward early and guards against those who seek to weaponise the sponsorship system in order to exploit vulnerable workers.
Changes to facilitate the UK rejoining the Erasmus+ programme
UK standard visitor route
I am expanding the provisions of the visitor immigration route to facilitate new short-term activities under the Erasmus+ programme, which the UK agreed to rejoin as part of the UK-EU common understanding package at the UK-EU summit in May 2025.
I am introducing new changes to “Appendix V: Visitor” of the immigration rules to permit visitors under the Erasmus+ programme to study at UK state schools and academies. State-funded schools and academies will now be able to host Erasmus+ participants under short-term study placements for up to six months.
The changes to “Appendix V: Visitor” will also introduce new eligibility requirements and safeguards to ensure that Erasmus+ participants are legitimate and, where necessary, have permission from their parent or legal guardian and their home institution to undertake Erasmus+ activities in the UK.
Additionally, to facilitate new activities stemming from participation in the Erasmus+ programme, I am introducing new changes to “Appendix Visitor: Permitted Activities”. All Visitors will now be able to partake in workshops, debates, and attend skills competitions.
A new section reserved for Erasmus+ activities will be introduced to “Appendix Visitor: Permitted Activities”, which will allow participants to undertake courses and provide or receive training, and undertake traineeships—all at UK based organisations and academic institutions. Erasmus+ participants may also partake in coaching and training assignments at UK-based sports organisations through the standard visitor route.
Student route
To facilitate the wide array of activities being undertaken through the Erasmus+ programme, I will be introducing new changes to the UK’s student immigration route.
I will be implementing new amendments to “Appendix Student” to allow Erasmus+ participants to undertake study activities at RQF level 2 and above or SCQF level 5 and above for Scotland. The changes made to “Appendix Student” will also exempt courses through Erasmus+ from the requirement that a course must lead to an approved qualification.
Additional amendments to “Appendix Student” will be made so that, where an Erasmus+ course includes a work placement, the course does not need to lead to an approved qualification and, for below-degree courses, the confirmation of acceptance for studies does not need to be assigned by a student sponsor that is not a probationary sponsor.
The study conditions set out in “Appendix Student” and “Appendix Child Student” will be amended to permit Erasmus+ participants to study at a state-funded school or academy, where the institution holds a sponsor licence and sponsors the Erasmus+ student.
I will be making further changes to the student sponsor licence arrangements to allow state-funded schools and academies to hold sponsor licences to sponsor inbound Erasmus+ students.
Government authorised exchange visa scheme
I will be opening a new scheme on the GAE immigration route to facilitate eligible Erasmus+ programme placements. This will permit those entering the UK for the purposes of Erasmus+ to partake in a range of supernumerary work placements and internships as an Erasmus+ participant.
These changes to the immigration rules are being laid on 3 September 2026. The changes will come into effect on 8 October 2026, 29 October 2026, 30 November 2026, and 9 December 2026, as detailed in the statement of changes.
[HCWS311]
Young Offender Institutions: Authorisation of PAVA Use
(1 day, 7 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Justice (Jake Richards)
In April 2025, the then Lord Chancellor announced the authorisation of PAVA spray for use by a specially trained and selected group of staff in the three public sector young offender institutions: HMYOI Feltham A, HMYOI Werrington and HMYOI Wetherby. This authorisation was granted for a period of 12 months and was accompanied by enhanced oversight, monitoring and evaluation arrangements.
The introduction of PAVA in the YOIs was intended to provide staff with an additional means of responding to the most serious incidents of violence, where its use is necessary, proportionate and appropriate to prevent serious harm to young people in custody or staff. It remains authorised only as a measure of last resort. As the only distance-based tactical option available to specially trained staff in these settings, PAVA provides an important capability to respond to serious violence rapidly to reduce the risk of injury to staff and young people.
Violence within the children and young people’s secure estate continues to present significant challenges. While work continues to improve safety, stability and outcomes for young people in custody, staff must be equipped to respond effectively to the most serious and dangerous incidents.
Having considered the available evidence, including operational experience, monitoring data and ongoing evaluation of the use of PAVA in YOIs, during recess agreement has been reached across Government to extend the authorisation for a further 12 months in the three public sector YOIs and I wrote on 11 August to the Justice Committee and the Justice and Home Affairs Committee to inform them of my decision. I am making this statement today to ensure all colleagues are aware.
This extension will provide further time to gather evidence on the effectiveness, appropriateness and impact of PAVA in youth settings. Throughout the extension period, every incident involving the drawing or use of PAVA will continue to be reviewed and evaluated as part of established oversight arrangements including ongoing monitoring of its use and the impacts on children with protected characteristics.
Data and emerging trends will be subject to ongoing scrutiny through existing governance processes, including oversight by the independent restraint review panel. An independent expert will continue to monitor the use of PAVA and provide advice on its operation, impact and any issues relating to proportionality.
Over the extension period, NHS England data and evidence relating to children on whom PAVA is used in the three public sector YOIs will be incorporated into the evidence gathered by the Youth Custody Service. This will help strengthen the evidence base and inform assessment of any health impacts, with input from the Department of Health and Social Care and NHS England; any impacts on the emotional and behavioural wellbeing of children, including any longer-term implications as they develop into adulthood; and the impacts on children with protected characteristics and other vulnerable groups.
Ministers will continue to receive regular reporting on the use of PAVA, including on its effectiveness, any disproportionate impacts identified, and the actions being taken in response.
Our long-term ambition is to significantly reduce the use of force across the youth secure estate. To achieve this, we must continue to bring down levels of violence across the estate.
This is a key objective of the youth custody transformation plan, which is due to be published in the coming months. Alongside this, we will continue to improve standards for children in custody.
[HCWS310]
Grand Committee
Arrangement of Business
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Healy of Primrose Hill) (Lab)
My Lords, if there is a Division in the Chamber while we are sitting, this Committee will adjourn as soon as the Division Bells are rung and resume after 10 minutes.
Cyber Security and Resilience (Network and Information Systems) Bill
(1 day, 7 hours ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Neville-Jones
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would narrow the definition of “incident” in regulation 1(2) of the NIS Regulations so that it covers events likely to have an adverse effect, rather than events capable of having one, aligning the definition with the likelihood tests applied to notification later in the Bill.
Baroness Neville-Jones (Con)
My Lords, in moving Amendment 17, I will also speak to Amendment 28, which is closely related. Amendment 17 is in part a probing amendment about what constitutes an incident and the circumstances in which reporting is obligatory. It does not affect the amendment that I think the Government will move immediately afterwards.
As drafted, Clause 15 gives the very strong impression that an incident “capable of having” an adverse effect on security must be reported. If this is the case, it constitutes a much wider definition of what should be reported than if it were described as an incident “likely to have” an adverse effect. I think it is a widely held view—it is certainly the case in the industry and a point with which I agree—that “likely to have” would be far too wide a definition and would lead to extensive overreporting and an undue and unnecessary burden on regulators. Looking at the drafting, I asked myself what was the point of the “capable of having” definition in Clause 15.
I shall put forward a hypothesis. It would be very helpful if the Minister could confirm that it is a correct understanding of the existing draft, and that it does not mean that all incidents capable of having an adverse effect on security will need to be reported. Is it right to say that the definition in Clause 15 of what constitutes an “incident” applies across the whole of the regulations, and therefore feeds into security as well as reporting duties? That is to say, firms have a preventive duty to defend against what could be and what could happen, as well as what is likely to happen. That is a preventive duty. Can the Minister confirm that the phrase “capable of having” means that firms should have adequate preventive policies, but it is not—this is where the point comes in—the trigger for an incident to be reported, because in each case this requires it to have affected or be affecting the system?
I am making a distinction between “capable of having”, which applies to a duty to pursue preventive policies, and the trigger of the duty to report, which lies not in the phrase “capable of having” but in “likely to have”. Then there are examples of what I am saying in the regulations, and I can cite them: Regulation 11(3)(a), on page 21 at line 35; Regulation 12A(2)(a), on page 26; and Regulation 14E(2)(a), on page 29 at line 27. If the Minister can confirm that, within existing structures, what I have said is correct—there are no circumstances in which “capable of having” would be the reporting trigger—that would be a very helpful clarification. I will listen closely to the Minister’s reply on this point.
There is a “however”: there is a snag when it comes to the introduction of data centres, and that is the object of my Amendment 28. Data centres sit outside the existing structures that I have just talked about but, as yet in the drafting, there are no reporting trigger regulations for them. It is intended that the data centres should be, in future, big players in the system, so it matters that there is a gap in our information about the circumstances in which they would have a duty to report. It is an odd anomaly. New Regulation 11A(3)—on page 23, from lines 13 and 14 onwards—makes reportable
“an incident which could have had … a significant”
effect, whether or not it had any impact at all or anything was affected. As there is no list of factors for judging what constitutes a significant attack in the Bill, it makes it quite difficult to interpret.
For the operators of essential digital services and managed service providers, such factors are set out expressly in the new regulations in the Bill. However, they are absent for data centres. Why is this the case? What is the rationale for what appears an anomaly? It means that, when reporting an incident, a data centre has to do so when any of the following have had, or were likely to have,
“a significant impact on the operation or security of the network and information systems relied on to provide the data centre service … a significant impact on the continuity of the data centre service … or … any other impact, in the United Kingdom or any part of it, which is significant”.
These are very wide definitions of liability to report, and the discrepancy between them and those applying to other operators seems neither sensible from a security point of view nor fair for different business circumstances, as there will be all sorts of different businesses using data centres.
Although I hope that this will not be the case, I fear that the Government may say that the thresholds and factors for all categories of business will be set out in secondary legislation and subject to consultation. I ask the Minister to think hard about the adequacy of that reply. We are talking here about a penalty-backed duty, which is the core element of the Bill; it is not some minor point. It would seem a poor legislative approach in a foundational Bill for a new regime to fail to define the factors leading to a penalty for a significant segment of providers, when there are indicators in the Bill for other categories of provider. Those other players have different, less demanding and more sensible terms for a trigger for reporting. If data centre regulations need to be different from those for the other players that I have mentioned and the rest of the market, can the Minister explain why? It is the kind of complexity that will give the sectoral approach to regulation a controversial reputation, because it immediately raises the issue of making different rules for people who are apparently, in practice, in the same category. I hope that is not the case and that the issue can be resolved by remedying the drafting.
To sum up, in addition to my request for a clear statement from the Minister about the trigger for a duty to report in existing structures being related to the likelihood of an adverse effect on security and not on capability, I hope she will also take seriously the need to level the playing field for data centres on this issue and remedy what seems an important defect in the drafting of the Bill. I beg to move.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
My Lords, I will speak to this core group of amendments on incident reporting, in particular to Amendment 165, standing in my name, while addressing the other amendments in this group. First, Amendment 17, which was very cogently set out by the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Jones, addresses what has emerged as one of the most contentious technical faultlines, in our view, across Part 2 of this Bill: the statutory threshold that triggers mandatory incident reporting to the designated competent authority, the NCSC. As the Bill is drafted, Clause 15 fundamentally widens the reporting net by redefining a reportable incident to include any event that is merely “capable of having” an adverse effect on the security of network and information systems, as the noble Baroness described.
While one can readily understand the cyber security community’s desire for complete visibility, in practice, the phrase “capable of having” is an operational disaster. In the daily reality of enterprise networking, thousands of automated port scans, routine phishing lures and perimeter firewall probes occur every hour. Almost every single one of these low-level events is technically capable of having an adverse effect, if multiple defensive layers were to fail simultaneously. By forcing businesses to notify regulators under threat of £17 million penalties whenever an event is merely “capable” of causing harm, the Government will unleash an administrative tsunami of defensive reporting.
Rather than enhancing national security, this compliance overload will drown NCSC analysts in background noise, making it far harder to detect sophisticated state-sponsored attacks. Amendment 17, in our view, would resolve this by replacing “capable of having” with the objective standard of “likely to have”. This would restore the established probability threshold used across UK regulatory frameworks, ensuring that mandatory notifications are reserved strictly for genuine material threats where there is a real likelihood of operational compromise.
This issue is compounded by the Government’s own drafting amendments, specifically Amendments 19, 36 and 44, which replicate the ultra-broad definition of compromise throughout parts 2 and 3. By removing “users” from Clause 15 and redefining data compromise to cover any event affecting data stored or processed on a system, the Government are dramatically expanding the notification net to include technical data anomalies that cause zero destruction or loss to actual customers. Combining this sweeping definition of data compromise with the low “capable of having” trigger will hugely affect responsible operators. It will force critical suppliers and small digital providers to spend their limited resources filling in compliance paperwork, rather than actively defending their infrastructure.
We risk creating a reporting system that captures everything and understands nothing. We must have objective reporting thresholds. By accepting the noble Baroness’s Amendment 17, restoring the “likely to have” test, we would ensure that mandatory reporting delivers high-quality actionable threat intelligence, rather than an unmanageable flood of routine notifications.
Under the new reporting regime, hundreds of incidents will be notified to regulators and the NCSC, but at present the Bill lacks any mechanism to ensure that aggregate intelligence is shared with Parliament or industry. Under Amendment 165 in my name, I propose that the Government lay an annual anonymised report before Parliament, detailing incident volumes, sector breakdowns and principal attack vectors. This would provide software developers and CNI operators with the situational awareness needed to harden defences.
Viscount Camrose (Con)
My Lords, I start by thanking my noble friend Lady Neville-Jones for introducing this group and setting out her stall so clearly and compellingly. I apologise that some of the amendments that have been looked at here I had in my record as being part of the next group. So, if I do not cover them all now, they will be covered by my noble friend Lord Markham as we get into the next group.
Let me begin by outlining the amendments in my name and those of my noble friends Lord Markham and Lord Holmes of Richmond. The need for action on ransomware has never been higher. The NCSC handled 204 nationally significant ransomware attacks in the year to September 2025 that we know about—up by 130% on the year prior, leading the NCSC to name ransomware as the most pressing threat to the country in its annual report. Of course, one of the challenges we face with ransomware attacks is not knowing when they happen, to whom and how often. The victims too often have strong reasons, generally associated with legal liability, not to report them. This makes it challenging, if not impossible, for any government agency seeking to identify commonalities across attacks to pursue repeat offenders and warn vulnerable organisations.
We could seek to make reporting of such attacks mandatory, but at the risk of placing hacked organisations in an impossible position where public reporting creates a legal bind that worsens the damage already done by the attack. I take on board the cogent concerns expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, but the moral hazard occurs today where companies do not report ransomware attacks, thereby damaging our collective ability to defend others yet to be attacked.
Our amendment therefore seeks to find a channel that reports the facts of the hack and the metadata around it in a way that is not disclosed beyond the agency charged with cyber protection and does not become public knowledge. I do not pretend that this will be straightforward. For instance, we would have to understand how to deal with FoI requests and so on. That is why we propose a consultation. But if we were able to achieve something on this basis, we would greatly enhance our ability to protect UK PLCs from these hugely damaging attacks.
Amendment 172 seeks to require a review on the impact of the new reporting requirements introduced by the Bill. Again, this is fairly straightforward. The strengthened incident reporting requirements are being introduced to allow the regulators and the Government to help with providers and suppliers who have been attacked. Whether these requirements actually serve that purpose, and whether they do so at the expense of providers, cannot yet be known, but we must be able to form an assessment and adjust if necessary. Everyone in this Room would accept that we need statutory agility in the face of fast-moving technology, and a review on these lines could and would enable just that.
For a similar reason, I support the desire for transparency in Amendment 165 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones. This may even overlap with our own amendment; we could probably think about merging the two in some way. It seems clear that both Houses of Parliament should be informed as to what the reporting regime is being used for and whether it is fulfilling its function. I hope that the Minister agrees.
I very much support Amendment 17 in the name of my noble friend Lady Neville-Jones. We are going from an incident constituting an actual adverse event on the security of network and information systems to it being capable of having such an effect. Arguably—the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, made this point very well—almost any incident would meet this condition. We need language that expresses genuine risk to avoid all incidents being caught in the net. This seems wholly pragmatic to me and I commend it to the Minister, to whose response I look forward.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Science, Innovation and Technology (Baroness Lloyd of Effra) (Lab)
I thank noble Lords for their amendments in this group; in fact, subsequent groups also speak to this question of the nature, scope and timeliness of incident reporting. What we are all trying to do, I think, is to get the right balance in reporting actionable information that can be used by regulators and the NCSC to improve the security of the United Kingdom and the entities that operate essential services within it. That is obviously what the Government have put forward. I have heard clearly the arguments made by noble Lords, some of which probe the intention and the detail, and I will attempt to clarify those as I speak.
First, I shall speak to Amendments 19, 36 and 44 in my name. Improving incident reporting under the NIS framework is a key pillar of the Bill. Without an understanding of incidents, our regulators and the NCSC cannot assist in recovery, assess risk and bolster resilience. The amendments that I have tabled will ensure that the incident reporting measures for regulated entities reflect what we are trying to achieve.
The Bill already requires relevant regulated entities to consider a list of factors when determining whether an incident is likely to have a significant impact and be reportable. This includes whether data relating to users is, or is likely to be, compromised. Government Amendments 19, 36 and 44 remove the reference to “users”, meaning that all data compromises relating to the relevant network and information system are in scope of incident reporting. This will enable key incidents to be reported, including the compromise of commercially sensitive information or the exposure of access details or usernames of the regulated service.
These incidents will need to be reported to the NCSC and the relevant regulator. I say in response to the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, that that is the motivation behind the change to that categorisation. This will ensure that the regulators have full oversight of significant security compromises, supporting them to keep the UK safe and secure. We will shortly consult on what constitutes a significant impact and put further detail in secondary legislation and guidance.
I turn now to the amendments tabled by—
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
May I interrupt the Minister before she moves on to the next set of amendments? I do not intend to ambush her as regards her amendments this time around, but I seek an assurance, given that there seems to be quite a philosophical difference between her amendments today and those put forward by the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Jones. There is considerable industry concern about the disproportionality involved. I seek an assurance from the Minister that, between Committee and Report, she will actively consult on the impact of this part of the Bill—Clause 15—and not just when it is in black-letter form. There is quite a lot of concern from many industry voices. It is incumbent on the Government to listen to those voices on the impact of this reporting structure and these duties before they go ahead in a way that many of us believe will not be helpful for the running of these businesses.
Baroness Lloyd of Effra (Lab)
We have already undertaken some consultation and I am happy to commit to contact affected businesses and business organisations and have further conversations between now and Report. Perhaps if I progress a little more, I may be able to answer some of the questions that may have given rise to some of this but, equally, there are different rationales for some different thresholds in the Bill, which, again, I am just about to come on to. I will set out the rationale for those because I think that they are well motivated and are linked to the risk profile that we see in the country and the connectedness of certain regulated entities in the country.
I turn to the amendments tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Jones, and her questions to me on the link between the definitions and whether they apply beyond incident reporting. They apply to the security duties within the Bill, which means that regulated entities have a duty to prevent or minimise the impact of incidents. The amendments from the noble Baroness would limit this and reduce their security and resilience. We think that not every incident should be reportable but that organisations need to take appropriate and proportionate steps to mitigate the risks before, during and after a broader set of incidents.
On the second part of the noble Baroness’s amendments and her second question, the Government have recognised that the reporting threshold for data centres is broader than that for other regulated entities under the Bill. This reflects the distinctive role and risk profile of data centres. They are the physical infrastructure underpinning digital services across the economy and the public sector. Unlike the virtual cloud layer, for instance, they combine cyber, physical, personal and operational technology risks. This is particularly important in collocation facilities where infrastructure belonging to numerous customers is concentrated in one location. Then they need physical access to the premises and information about facilities or operational systems. A single incident could therefore exploit both physical and digital vulnerabilities, potentially affecting the confidentiality, integrity or availability of services belonging to multiple customers and sectors. The consequences may also extend beyond the facility’s immediate geographic location, because the hosted service can support users and central services elsewhere. That is the rationale for having this threshold applying to data centres.
To come on to the questions raised, including by the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, on the use of the phrase “capable of”, and the points made in the amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Jones, replacing “could have had” or “capable of having” with “likely to have” would exclude some incidents because their eventual impact was uncertain or successfully contained. It would also constrain the security duties, as I mentioned. In reference to the incident reporting definitions introduced by Clause 15, the subsequent detail sets out how the notification of incidents applies in each regulated sector, except for data centres. That is how the definition is made for regulated sectors other than data centres.
There are a lot of safeguards in the Bill to ensure that reporting remains proportionate. It is intended to capture significant near misses, not routine scanning, unsuccessful low-level attacks or ordinary operational events, and clear guidance will ensure that the industry understands this threshold. As the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Jones, pointed out, we will set this out in secondary legislation and that will allow the consultation to take place that the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, emphasised is so important—we agree with that. We have undertaken extensive engagement to date and will continue to do so.
Baroness Neville-Jones (Con)
My Lords, I have listened carefully to what the Minister has said. I had hoped that we would get greater clarity; I fear that the fog has increased. I entirely accept the point that companies have a general duty to take as many preventive measures as they can to increase security. That is a different matter, it seems, from what should trigger the reporting duty. Precisely what the Minister has laid out leads to a situation of an overload of reporting of items that do not require that kind of treatment.
I am extremely concerned that the industry fears—and it has a real point—that it will be caused to be active in areas which lead the regulators to be swamped and which reduces the real level of security, because it is doing things that it does not really need to. For those of us who are willing to contemplate a system of regulation that allows for differentiation between sectors—in other words, a sectoral approach—it is the kind of thing that will lead to a terrible muddle. I am unhappy about the response that has been given to that general point. It strengthens the cause of those who say that we should have one general regulator and that it should set the rules.
Secondly, on the question of data centres, I cannot understand that a data centre could alter the rules under which companies, if they happen to be located in a data centre, are operating and doing their business. I fear that this is an issue to which we will have to return on Report, because as things stand we are not heading in the right direction. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
“(c) if requested by the designated competent authority following the full notification, an intermediate report containing such information on the status of the incident, and updating the information given under paragraph (2)(b), as the authority may specify, and(d) a final report containing the information listed in paragraph (5A) in relation to the incident.”Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment is part of a set of amendments in the name of Baroness Harding that strengthen the staged reporting requirements for OES, except so far as it provides an essential service of a kind referred to in paragraph 11(2) or (3) of Schedule 2 (data centre services).This amendment enables competent authorities to require an intermediate update from the affected regulated entity within 14 days and a final report within a month.
Baroness Harding of Winscombe (Con)
My Lords, I rise to introduce a large number of amendments, for which I apologise: Amendments 18 to 23, 25 to 31, 33 to 39, 41 to 47 and 49 and 50.
Baroness Harding of Winscombe (Con)
Full house. Fear not—it is not as complex as it seems. These amendments, which I have introduced, and I am grateful for the support of the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, and my noble friend Lord Holmes of Richmond, seek to strengthen the staged reporting requirements of the four different groups of entities, so each change must be repeated four times. Because of the way in which the Bill is drafted, I was unable to introduce the change just once; I had to put in each micro phrase, hence so many amendments. The aim is to strengthen the staged reporting requirements for operators of essential services, data centres, relevant digital service providers and relevant managed service providers, so everything is multiplied by four.
The Bill, as it stands, requires only an initial report within 24 hours and a full notification within 72 hours of an incident. My amendments would add two further stages: an intermediate report which is capped at 14 days after the incident has first been notified, or sooner if the relevant regulator requires, and a final report within one month. In all four cases, the reports must be given without undue delay, so that regulated entities cannot use the timeframes as an excuse to delay until the end of the time period.
These amendments are in line with the EU’s NIS2 directive. The reason why I have introduced them, as I said at Second Reading, is that I have lived this. I absolutely understand what the fog feels like. In the first moment when you have been attacked, you do not understand what has happened: you do not know who is attacking you, you do not know what they could have stolen, you do not know where they have gone, but you do know that it is serious. That is your first report. You start to understand, 72 hours later, quite how awful it could be. That is your second report, where you start to get real data, because your teams have worked all night, usually all around the world, to try to work out where the malign actors have gone. But it is really only after a couple of weeks that you have a proper sense of what has happened.
I recognise that my experience is, obviously, 10 years old, but quite recently I had a long conversation with some of the leaders at Marks & Spencer. The thing that scared me most was that it seemed so similar to my experience 10 years ago and that this basic process is likely to be the same. So we need the requirement to properly update whatever you learn two weeks on, and then a month later the fog starts to clear and you have a proper sense of the real scale of the problem.
The reason why we need to put this in legislation is that, throughout that entire period, all the incentives for you, as a corporate leader, are not to say anything. This is the biggest corporate taboo. Your board will be encouraging you not to tell everyone, the public will be telling you not to tell everyone and there is a real risk, unless you are forced to, that you just make it easier for the blackmailers to do their work. My personal experience was of being blackmailed during this process. Obviously, at the time, there were none of these regulations. I can tell your Lordships that there were so many voices saying, “Why don’t you just shut up? You don’t know what’s going on yet. Keep quiet”. Yet if, in the fog, you share this information with regulators and with law enforcement agencies, that is how the law can prevail. It is how regulators can work out what is happening and how they can warn others who might be affected. It is how the law enforcement agencies can do their work to try to find the bad guys.
This really matters if we want the rule of law to exist in the digital world, because the incentives, even for entirely well-meaning and upstanding leaders of corporations—and government departments, dare I say—are to keep quiet. We need to put these reporting requirements in the Bill. All the amendments would do is bring our own legislation in line with the NIS2 framework. To be honest, many of these companies and these incidents are likely to need to be reported in Europe at the same time as they are in the UK. As my noble friend Lady Neville-Jones said, there is a real primacy on keeping things simple. The more we can mirror and have exactly the same reporting requirements, the easier it will be when you are in that terrifying moment when you realise that you have a serious incident. I beg to move.
Baroness Kidron (CB)
My Lords, I am very glad to support all the amendments; I will not read them out again. The noble Baroness, Lady Harding, has already convincingly set out the case. I really hope that the Minister recognises that these amendments are born out of lived experience, which is characteristic of this House and very precious when considering how legislation actually impacts in the world at times of crisis.
The amendment specifically calls for staged incident reporting, to create a drumbeat of information and oversight so that damage can be minimised. Cyber attacks move quickly and are extremely confusing for those involved. Staged incident reporting enables regulators to have a more immediate understanding, so that they can offer support, anticipate spread and learn lessons for strengthening guidance in the future.
Lord Holmes of Richmond (Con)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to support these amendments. I have signed all of them, although in doing so I almost got a serious case of electronic RSI. They have the great good fortune of being clear, precise and aligned with existing regulations in other jurisdictions. As my noble friend Lady Harding has already pointed out, many businesses will have operations in multiple jurisdictions. For something as significant as reporting, why would we not follow NIS2 in this respect?
The clarity of the amendments is their strength, even more so when compared with what is currently in the Bill in this respect. What we are trying to achieve from these changes is clear. The 24-hour initial reporting period makes sense: of course it does. As my noble friend Lady Harding pointed out, what one knows at that point is that something is happening and a report is made. In many ways, that is all that needs to be known and all that needs to be reported.
To have a situation as currently set out in the Bill, 24 then 72, means that in that period so much would need to be known to comply with the provisions set out in the Bill that it is just not realistic. This staged approach is both clear and precise. It enables what the purpose of the Bill is all about, which is to support the individual business or entity that is under attack. Crucially, as other noble Lords have said, it puts the power in the collective. As a consequence of one attack, the collective can benefit if there is a sense of commitment to this reporting schedule. That will come only if it is in this stage 4, as clearly set out by my noble friend Lady Harding.
If we want to enable businesses and other entities to really commit to this process—not just be dragged there by force of statute but have it as a means of business as usual, a real cultural change and a commitment to the positivity of this—it has to work for them. This staged process not only does that but, by aligning with NIS, stops this being yet another burden added to business: added unnecessarily and less effectively than what these amendments propose. I very much look forward to the Minister’s response.
Lord Arbuthnot of Edrom (Con)
My Lords, good can come out of bad events. The experience, as well as the speech, of my noble friend Lady Harding is one such good aspect. If it combines with bringing us into line with European practice, which so many businesses already have to follow, so much the better. I hope the Minister will be as sympathetic as she possibly can to my noble friend’s amendments.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
My Lords, I very strongly support this set of amendments on the staged notification of incidents. This is a significant group of amendments from the noble Baroness, Lady Harding, and so well supported by the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, and the noble Lord, Lord Holmes; he has illustrated this extremely well. As has been described, the noble Baroness, Lady Harding, has a great deal of experience. She brings an invaluable perspective to this Committee, having led a major telecommunications provider through one of the most high-profile corporate cyber breaches in British history. She speaks from real experience and understands very clearly what happens inside an organisation in the immediate aftermath of a severe attack. We should listen extremely carefully to what she has to say.
In those critical opening hours, incident response teams and forensic engineers are working under an intense fog of war, so to speak, actively fighting to contain the malware, to isolate compromised servers and to protect customer data. We cannot expect an organisation to produce an exhaustive, multivariable forensic post-mortem within the first few hours of a fast-moving operational crisis. Yet, as Clause 15 currently stands, the reporting pipeline that follows the initial notification is left thin and unstructured. The noble Baroness’s amendments fix this with three-stage architecture, which is mirrored clause by clause across each category of regulated entity: operators of essential services, data centres, relevant digital service providers and relevant managed service providers.
I will not add much more, as noble Lords have already spoken extremely eloquently. Cyber incidents do not likely conclude on the day a final report falls due. Where an incident is still live at the point that the final report is owed, the entity must instead give a progress report on the information known to date, followed by the final report within one month of the incident ceasing. That seems to me to be a very sensible and realistic accommodation of how live incidents unfold.
Finally, I turn to the amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Ashcombe, although I do not see him here in Committee. They would extend the deadline for the full notification from 72 hours to 30 days. I understand the underlying concerns, as 72 hours can be an unforgiving window in which to complete a full investigation and analysis. However, it is the amendments from the noble Baroness, Lady Harding, that deliver what we need. Intermediate reporting exists precisely so that the authorities are not left in the dark for weeks at a time. Taken together, the noble Baroness’s amendments replace a single blunt deadline with a structured, predictable reporting line, which gives business clarity on exactly what is required and when, while ensuring that the NCSC and our competent authorities receive high-quality, structured intelligence, rather than a single, rushed snapshot. As she said, this is the kind of staged discipline that the EU’s NIS2 directive already reflects and which this Bill should emulate.
Lord Markham (Con)
As per the points made by other noble Lords, this is a prime example of when you realise how valuable it is to have in this House and, in particular, in this Committee people who have lived experience. Because of that, this is a well thought out set of proposals; I thank my noble friend Lady Harding for bringing them before us, and I thank my noble friend Lord Holmes and the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, for supporting them.
These amendments mirror a lot of what I saw from the other side when I was the Health Minister and we had the problems with Synnovis and testing. That is where I am coming from: you realise that you need some real teeth because, even though you have public bodies such as the NHS, which you think would listen to the Minister on certain requirements, that that does not always follow. The point made by my noble friend Lady Harding about everyone telling you to keep quiet applies to state organisations just as much as it does to private companies. Having teeth is an important part of all this and of making things happen.
The staged approach has been mentioned. In your first 72 hours, it is all about wanting just to get the information out there. One of my questions—I will come on to the rest in a minute—is: what are we doing on our side with that information? We must make sure that it is being used valuably and used to alert others. Only later on, around the 30-day mark, do you get into the “lessons learned” stage. So staged reporting would be a very sensible and well thought out approach.
That brings me on to another point; I would be grateful if the Minister could address it. If we are requiring businesses to provide such information to the Government very quickly, what will they get back? The strong justification for rapid incident reporting is surely that the NCSC can aggregate the intelligence, identify common attack vectors and vulnerabilities, and rapidly warn other organisations before they, too, are attacked. Obviously, that is the difference between regulatory reporting and genuine national cyber defence. I would be grateful if the Minister could explain the planning and what will happen operationally when one of these early notifications is received. How quickly will the information be assessed? How quickly will actionable intelligence be disseminated to other potentially vulnerable organisations? What obligations will there be on the Government and the regulators to ensure that the information provided by one organisation improves the resilience of everyone else?
Of course, there is a wider point here. Throughout our consideration of the Bill, we need to guard against measuring success by the number of organisations regulated or the number of reports submitted. Rather, the real test is whether fewer attacks succeed, whether we identify attacks faster, whether organisations can recover more quickly and whether intelligence from one attack prevents the next one. That is the outcomes we want this regime to achieve.
I hope that the Minister will look seriously at the principles behind these amendments, and in particular at whether we can achieve a reporting structure that gives the Government the information they genuinely need quickly while allowing organisations to concentrate their scarce cyber expertise on the thing that matters most: defeating the attack.
Baroness Lloyd of Effra (Lab)
I thank noble Lords for their amendments in this group. We have spoken previously about the importance of effectiveness, proportionality and clarity. I absolutely hear the experience of the noble Baroness, Lady Harding, in leading a telecommunications company and the experience it had.
We have learned from experiences across all sectors in introducing the new regime that is in the Bill, which puts in, as others have said, a staged approach that includes an early alert to regulators and the NCSC within 24 hours. That will provide awareness and enable the NCSC and regulator to provide early support, as well as potentially understand whether it is impacting multiple regulated entities.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
My Lords, before the noble Baroness, Lady Harding, stands up, I heard what the Minister had to say about consulting across sectors. I was reminded that, at Second Reading, I mentioned the fact that the law firm with which I am associated, DLA Piper, was subjected to a NotPetya ransomware attack back in 2017. What the Minister said is completely at odds with not only what the noble Baroness, Lady Harding, said, but the experience that we had in the way that we needed to understand how these events unfold. It would be really helpful to know from the Minister, or for her to publish, the sectors where the Government have had those discussions and which parts of industry have agreed that this is an appropriate form of incident reporting.
What we are trying to do, throughout the Bill, is to ground it in what is practical. At the moment, despite the fact that we are letting through some government amendments, it seems that we are heading in the wrong direction with this clause. It is going to be disproportionate in the way that it impacts on business and is not even going to be fit for purpose, despite the disproportionality. It is just not going to work.
Baroness Lloyd of Effra (Lab)
I think we all agree that we want a proportionate and clear regime. The noble Lord supports further incident reporting here—additional stages of incident reporting. In our impact assessment, we clearly set out the implications of that in its cost to business and so on. We will come on shortly to discuss potentially broadening the scope of incidents that would be reported. We have not been able to quantify that potential impact, as a sort of counterfactual, because we are only just discussing that.
Baroness Harding of Winscombe (Con)
My Lords, I have listened really carefully to the Minister and thank her for her response, but I feel that we just had a completely black and white no, which is extremely disappointing. We have had something almost worse than a black and white no, because if I heard her correctly—I will need to go back and read it again—I think she has added uncertainty, because suggesting that it is okay because regulators have the ability to ask for extra reporting is a company’s worst nightmare. What you want is really clear black and white guardrails, as we have been trying to introduce in these amendments.
I had hoped that we could have follow-up discussions between now and Report, but I feel like the door has been rather slammed in my face. I would be very keen to understand, as the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, has just said, what consultation has really happened and to have a recognition that you need to consult organisations that have experienced a substantial cyber attack. If an organisation has not, then I am afraid it will want to keep quiet and will not want to report anything. It is easy to ask broad groups of organisations, “Would you like more reporting?” We all know what the answer to that would be. That is an easy consultation.
I would really value more detailed discussions with the Minister and her officials between now and Report, because I feel that we will come back to this, particularly given the support that my amendments have received from across the Committee, for which I am extremely grateful. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Lloyd of Effra
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would require an operator of an essential service to consider whether any data relating to the essential service has been compromised (not just data relating to users of the service) when determining whether an incident should be reported.
Baroness Lloyd of Effra
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would require a relevant digital service provider to consider whether any data relating to the relevant digital service has been compromised (not just data relating to users of the service) when determining whether an incident should be reported.
Baroness Lloyd of Effra
Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would require a relevant managed service provider to consider whether any data relating to the relevant managed service has been compromised (not just data relating to users of the service) when determining whether an incident should be reported.
Baroness Harding of Winscombe (Con)
I apologise, I stand to speak to a whole other group of amendments that suffer from the same challenge of needing to be repeated four times, which is why I suggested to the clerks that we degroup them, otherwise we would have got into a real muddle.
This group seeks to address the obligation to report incidents to customers, as the Minister referenced in her remarks earlier. Currently, the Bill requires notification only where a customer is,
“likely to be adversely affected”.
The obligation is to explain the nature of the incident and why the customer is affected. My amendments seek to broaden and deepen that duty. Customers must be notified where an incident has caused or has the potential to cause severe operational damage or financial loss, where I hope my drafting has not fallen prey to the issue that my noble friend Lady Neville-Jones, addressed in Amendment 17. If it has done so, we obviously need to address that.
The duty is extended to cover related natural or legal persons who could suffer considerable damage as a result. The regulated entities must also advise customers on what measures to take in response. Probably most importantly in this group of amendments, the entities must keep customers updated until the incident is resolved, whereas at the moment the Bill only requires them to notify customers once and then leave them hanging, waiting to find out what is going on. Together these amendments would ensure that customers are told promptly what to do and are kept informed throughout the incident until it is resolved. They also follow the NIS2 directive in requiring advice on protective measures and go a little further by making it a requirement to communicate to related persons as well.
Sadly, I have personal experience in this, not from my TalkTalk times but much more recently. I suspect anybody who is on a board or who has chaired a business has experienced this. An organisation that I chair is the customer of a managed service provider that recently experienced an incident. It did not tell us. The incident was to do with some of our staff payroll information, so it was sensitive and important. When it did tell us, it then did not keep us informed about what was going on. So I feel that pain.
I know that some noble Lords may have concerns that we do not want to create panic by endless notification. I absolutely agree. Hence my attempt to define this as severe operational damage. I would very much welcome input between now and Report if we can tighten that wording to make sure that this does not represent lots of unnecessary email alerts telling you that a system three stages back in the tech stack might have been affected. But when your customers’ data has been exposed in a cyber attack through a managed service provider, data centre or digital service that you use, it is entirely reasonable that those companies have a requirement to inform and keep you updated during the incident. That is all that these amendments seek to do. I beg to move.
Baroness Kidron (CB)
My Lords, for reasons that I do not understand, I do not have my name on these amendments, given all the others from the noble Baroness that I do, but I support them. It is funny, because when I came back from holiday in August, I had no fewer than five emails from companies saying that there had been data breaches in which I was involved, and I had that exact thought—“What now? What do I do? What’s next? How serious?”—and did nothing.
Lord Holmes of Richmond (Con)
My Lords, I support all these amendments. They bring the customer perspective well into focus, which the Bill is currently chronically insufficient on, in my view. As the noble Baroness, Lady Harding, identified, if these amendments do not quite get to the precision of it, how will the Government bring something forward that will do the trick perfectly? This is a critically significant element which is currently not within the Bill. On an allied point, which has already been nodded to, I ask the Minister, since the Bill’s drafting seems to like “likely to”, and, in earlier additions “capable of”, why would there not be coherence through the Bill as to the type of legal construction that is being used throughout? Surely, that would not only be beneficial and more precise, but it would give greater clarity to all those who have to engage with the issues therein.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
My Lords, I, too, support these customer notification amendments tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Harding of Winscombe. As I have said, the noble Baroness brings vital lived experience, in more ways than I thought, from the front line of corporate crisis response. When a major cyber breach occurs, vague statutory requirements to notify customers
“as soon as reasonably practicable”
lead to corporate delay. Amendment 58 would replace this with a strict statutory 24-hour notification clock, while Amendment 65 would establish explicit harm triggers and require providers to provide actionable remediation advice to affected customers. Look at what Amendments 60 and 65, in particular, would achieve across Clause 16.
Under Amendment 65, notification would be explicitly triggered whenever an incident causes or threatens severe operational disruption, substantial financial loss or material harm to downstream users. Furthermore, Amendment 71 would place a positive duty on the provider to advise customers on immediate remediation steps that they can take. In the cyber realm, time is the attacker’s greatest ally. If a hospital, bank or small supplier is informed within 24 hours that their cloud or managed service provider has been breached and given technical instructions on how to isolate their systems, they can prevent contagion before it paralyses their operations. We must ensure that customer notification is prompt and meaningful, empowering downstream businesses to isolate compromised systems before contagion spreads, so we very strongly support these amendments.
Viscount Camrose (Con)
My Lords, I, too, thank my noble friend Lady Harding of Winscombe for tabling this important set of amendments, which we welcome, and for clarifying the refinements of the grouping process, which had slightly eluded me up to that point. As with the previous group, this would amend four key areas of, on this occasion, customer reporting. It would tighten the timing to notify customers; widen the incidents expected to be reported by removing the adverse impact criterion; add extra reporting triggers; and add an “advice on remedies” duty.
Of course, businesses should be supported in the case of cyber attacks and our priority must be preventing, containing and controlling such incidents, but this cannot come at the expense of the customers that businesses serve and depend on. Customers deserve to know when a firm they depend on is targeted, even if such an attack does not necessarily directly adversely affect them. They deserve to be informed promptly and they deserve to be informed of potential remedies.
It is worth saying that there is a welcome side effect to doing so, based on the premise that behaviours are the best guard against cyber attack. Constantly being aware that cyber attacks are going on will improve behaviours. As was said earlier, the goal is not to create panic but, on a continuum between insouciance and panic, we must imbue a point closer to concern more widely in the population to keep people aware that we are constantly at risk of being hacked. On these Benches we feel these are wise, pragmatic and helpful changes. I certainly hope the Minister agrees.
Baroness Lloyd of Effra (Lab)
I thank the noble Baroness for raising important points around customer communication. As set out in the Bill, it takes forward the current duties to notify customers that the Bill places on data centres, OESs, RDSPs and RMSPs. That duty was designed to ensure that providers of key digital and data infrastructure services consider whether their customers are likely to have been adversely affected by a reported incident—whether through disruption of service, compromise of their data or exposure of their systems to cyber threats—and to notify them.
I will explain the logic in response to the point of the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, about the importance of meaningful communication with customers. The reason we have drafted the Bill so that customer notification follows the 72-hour incident report is to ensure that regulated entities can focus on understanding the nature of the incident and contact customers when they are more likely to understand its potential impacts.
We have discussed the question of what an organisation might reasonably be expected to know within 24 hours of identifying an incident. The point is that customers should be communicated with in a timely manner, with sufficient information, so that they can take the necessary action. On that point, the rationale for 72 hours was to time it, for simplicity, with the 72-hour report. I am happy to consult further with the noble Baroness to explain the logic of the 72-hour and 42-hour requirement to communicate with customers, because the motivation is exactly the same: to have actionable and meaningful communication with customers.
I turn to the degree of depth of communication, the advice that can reasonably be put on regulated entities on technical measures, and what technical mitigations customers should take on their own. It is reasonable that the regulated entity should share what they know about the nature of the incident. The question about whether the regulated entity is in the right position to provide advice to customers on what mitigations they should take is both practical and technical. Would they have enough insight to have an effective understanding of the situation of the customers and a detailed understanding of the customers and their businesses in order to give effective meaningful advice in that way—or would that just be a requirement on the entities that would not have the intended impact? On that point, I am not quite persuaded that the line is drawn in the right position.
On keeping in touch, mentioned by the noble Baronesses, Lady Kidron and Lady Harding, I am happy to come back to that on Report to make sure that we have the right balance between the initial notification and the right type of customer communication.
Baroness Harding of Winscombe (Con)
I thank all the noble Lords who, again, have supported my long list of amendments and I thank them for their excellent contributions. It feels as if we made a very small breakthrough, for which I am extremely grateful, and I thank the Minister. I will not delay anyone any longer as we have another group of my amendments to come, but I look forward to some detailed discussions between now and Report to see if we can bring this back in a form that we are all able to support. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
“Notification of near misses, cyber threats and sub-threshold incidentsAfter regulation 14G of the NIS Regulations (inserted by section 16) insert—“Notification of near misses, cyber threats and sub-threshold incidents(1) A regulated person must notify the designated competent authority without undue delay and in any event no later than 72 hours after becoming aware of—(a) a cyber threat,(b) a near miss, or(c) a sub-threshold incident,affecting the regulated person’s network and information systems.(2) A person other than a regulated person may notify the designated competent authority on a voluntary basis of a cyber threat or a near miss or a sub-threshold incident affecting that person’s network and information systems, regardless of whether that person is subject to any requirement under these Regulations.(3) Without prejudice to the prevention, investigation, detection and prosecution of criminal offences, a person who gives a notification under paragraph (1) or (2) is not, by reason only of that notification, subject to any additional duty, liability or requirement to which that person would not otherwise have been subject.(4) In this regulation—“cyber threat” means any potential circumstance, event or action that could, if it occurred, adversely affect the network and information systems of a person, or the users of a service provided by means of such systems;“near miss” means an event that could have compromised the availability, authenticity, integrity or confidentiality of data, or of a service provided by means of network and information systems, but that was prevented from having that effect or did not in fact have that effect;“regulated person” means an OES, an RDSP, an RMSP or a critical supplier;“sub-threshold incident” means an incident affecting the regulated person’s network and information systems which the regulated person is not otherwise required to notify under regulation 11(2), 11A(2), 12A(1) or 14E(1) but which is close to the thresholds for notification under those regulations.”” Member’s explanatory statement
This new clause seeks to ensure that regulated persons must report to their designated competent authority any near miss incident, cyber threat, or sub-threshold incident that could adversely affect the network and information systems of a person, or the users of a service provided by means of such systems.
Baroness Harding of Winscombe (Con)
I am sorry, it is me again. In a break with tradition, we have only one amendment in this group. That is because this amendment would insert a proposed new clause, as opposed to lots of small changes to existing clauses. Amendment 72 is in my name and, once again, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, for adding her name.
This proposed new clause seeks to ensure that organisations regulated under the Bill must report any near misses, cyber threats or incidents currently under the thresholds as set out in the Bill that could affect their network and information systems. I am, again, mindful that it is important that this is consistent with the extremely well-made points of my noble friend Lady Neville-Jones in Amendment 17. It is welcome to have discussions on whether the wording is right, because the purpose is to get the near miss, rather than a huge deluge of meaningless reporting.
As it stands, the Bill requires regulated entities to report only what has happened, and only if it crosses a threshold based on factors such as scale, duration and the number of people affected. However, my amendments look to close the gaps in the event of, for example, an attack an organisation has stopped before it has caused major damage, but had the attack had been successful, it would have had a substantial effect across the whole industry. Other examples are where there are very credible warnings of an expected attack that does not occur, or where there is an incident that falls just below the thresholds that could still be significant.
The intention of this amendment—unlike in my other two groups, it is quite a probing amendment to see if we can work together to capture the spirit of this—is to close a reporting gap where significant incidents may not be reported simply because of the way we have drawn up the definitions in the Bill.
As in the other two groups that I have led, this follows the EU NIS2 directive, although the NIS2 directive creates a voluntary rather than a mandatory reporting provision for this. My view is that the taboo for going public on cyber attacks is so great that voluntary reporting is not the way to do this. It is better for all organisations to know the black and white of what they can do, what they should do and what they do not have to do. In some sectors, certainly the one I worked in—telecoms—there is a fair amount of voluntary sharing. But even there, there is such a taboo about speaking to your regulator about a problem that this needs to be made this mandatory rather than voluntary. Other than that, this seeks to replicate what is in the EU NIS2 directives. With that—I think noble Lords have probably heard enough of me—I beg to move.
Baroness Kidron (CB)
My Lords, I support Amendment 72 and I have signed it. I recognise the probing nature of this, but I also recognise the problem it seeks to address. The knowledge that a cyber threat or cyber attack has failed may be incredibly important intelligence because, on the whole, someone trying to create a cyber threat will not retire after the first time that it did not work out; they will try somewhere else, so the intelligence element of this is so crucial.
Some of the people in cyber security talk about seven stages of cyber attack. The first stage is reconnaissance: you are just having a look round and trying to identify vulnerabilities. The second stage is weaponisation: you are developing the means to target that weakness, which can be as simple as an email. It is not until the third stage that the attack begins. But there are still three or four more stages, each of which can provide a barrier and each of which can be the place at which the attack stops. It is not uncommon for attackers to carry out multiple attempts to find or exploit a vulnerability, or indeed to do a small-scale attack in order to then do something larger down the line. In all these cases, there is something absolutely critical for the regulator and possibly the enforcement community to know.
Lord Birt (CB)
I, too, support the amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady Harding, as I do all the amendments previously discussed. By definition, a near miss means a severe threat narrowly avoided that would have had substantial consequences if it had not been avoided. The interesting thing is that everyone tells me that the near-miss reporting in the aviation industry proved to be massively significant and fundamentally changed the whole approach to air safety, with very beneficial consequences. The case is very sound that it should be applied here.
Lord Holmes of Richmond (Con)
My Lords, I support this amendment, particularly in terms of its probing nature and what work can potentially be done between Committee and Report in this respect. It is really about the question of mandation. There should not be any question of a voluntary requirement. This is something that is not about the individual organisation, business or entity. It goes broader than that. It is about the community, the greater good and the country. The fact of a near miss says nothing about the severity of intent and the intel that can thus be gleaned to benefit at that point across the sector, the community, the country and beyond. Mandation has to be the standard for this provision.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
My Lords, I cannot possibly compete with the Shakespearean seven stages—as opposed to ages—of the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron. We support Amendment 72 in its entirety. Voluntary reporting is the bit of the amendment that we particularly like. Our national security services and sectoral competent authorities desperately need early upstream visibility of emerging threat patterns before a full-blown systemic crisis unfolds. In the cyber domain, the precursors to the catastrophic attack—the subtle network probes, the exploratory reconnaissance and near misses—often appear weeks before a critical system is actually breached.
At present, the Bill creates a bit of an all-or-nothing trap. If any entity experiences a sophisticated near miss that fails to cross the statutory threshold of an active disruptive breach, it has a powerful legal incentive to keep quiet. It fears that, if it approaches a regulator voluntarily, it will expose itself to regulatory scrutiny, compliance investigations and potential enforcement action. In our view, including a dedicated statutory framework into the NIS regulations specifically for the voluntary notification of near misses, sub-threshold anomalies and early-stage cyber threats would be a significant beneficial addition to the Bill. In effect, it would establish a safe harbour for intelligence sharing.
As the recent “Analogue 72” green paper powerfully argued, we must move away from a culture of fear and silence in this area and we must encourage continuous proactive information flows between our critical infrastructure operators and the NCSC. We strongly support this amendment.
Lord Reay (Con)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lady Harding of Winscombe for her amendment, to which the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, has added her name. We believe that this is a straightforward amendment. If we are to tackle cyber attacks seriously and to create a generally resilient cyber system, we should not simply stop at the reporting of incidents that happen. A key way of ensuring that we build not just a responsive but a preventive cyber system is by knowing what potential risks exist and who is attempting to commit cyber attacks, even if they have not done so yet. This is a reasoned amendment that places a requirement only on those already considered regulated persons, with the opportunity for others not regulated to report voluntarily. I hope that the Minister will agree.
Baroness Lloyd of Effra (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for raising this question about the requirement for regulated entities to report cyber threats, near misses and sub-threshold incidents within a 72-hour deadline.
I turn first to the question of voluntary reporting, which we touched on a little in the context of discussing the industry groupings on Tuesday and the trust groups that exist and are often facilitated by the NCSC. These are incredibly valuable groups. We absolutely encourage voluntary reporting, whether through those groups or other industry bodies. There is a question about whether putting such groups and mechanisms on a statutory footing helps or hinders that objective, because we need to engender the confidence to share information, as the noble Baroness and others mentioned. There is a question about whether that is within the regulatory perimeter, as it were, and whether it encourages that or not. I am happy to come back to that on Report.
I turn to the question of reporting sub-threshold incidents. The amendment concerns incidents that have been successfully contained or have proved ineffective, incidents that fall somewhere below the current reporting thresholds and any potential circumstance or event that could, if it occurred, affect a regulated entity’s systems or the users of a service provided through these systems. We discussed that in the context of data centres. Let me answer the question from the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron. In the discussion on data centres, I was speaking about near misses. We made the point highlighted by the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Jones: near misses and those types of incidents would be captured for data centres, given the particular role they play in our digital infrastructure.
The extension of similar requirements—although, as we read it, they are much broader requirements—to all regulated entities would increase regulatory reporting very significantly. The noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Jones, made the point right at the beginning—although it could have possibly been someone else—about the ability of our regulators to effectively utilise the threat intelligence and manage it so that it can be conveyed into actionable advice and trend data. These are the considerations that we take.
Another consideration is that the entities that have more sophisticated surveillance and mitigations may be able to identify attacks more effectively. We would not want to set up a situation where there were any perverse incentives in the system for those who have very adept surveillance and assessments away from reporting or developing that.
Even though I heard very clearly that the motivation is that the amendment is just to catch to those incidents that just fall below, our reading of it is that it would be much wider, and it may indeed have some other effects. At this stage, I would not support the amendment as drafted.
Baroness Harding of Winscombe (Con)
It was my suggestion to break up these amendments into different groups, otherwise we would have had about 100 amendments in one group. There is an awful lot of overlap in the discussion on this group in particular and Amendment 17 in the name of my noble friend Lady Neville-Jones. Would the Minister commit to having a joint meeting, where we could try to work this through together? I think we share a common goal of wanting to give as much relevant, immediate and up-to-date intelligence to the network as possible, without overwhelming, and recognising that, as the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, said, time is absolutely everything in these cyber attacks. If we could discuss that together rather than separately, that would be extremely valuable.
Baroness Lloyd of Effra (Lab)
That would indeed be very valuable to discuss the questions around definition, scope, coverage, timeliness and impact on potential entities—sorry, I have just expanded our agenda.
Baroness Harding of Winscombe (Con)
I have heard very clearly the willingness to discuss and collaborate from the Minister, which is extremely welcome, as were the contributions from all noble Lords. If the last hour and half has shown anything, it is that there is a genuine cross-Committee desire to work—this is what the House does at its best—to genuinely improve, with a shared goal of a piece of legislation that the country will benefit from if we can get it right. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Markham
“Exemption from disclosure: right to a fair trial(1) Nothing in paragraphs (1)(d) to (f) of regulation 6, or regulation 6A, permits a NIS enforcement authority to share information with another NIS enforcement authority or with a person within paragraph (2) of regulation 6 if the Secretary of State determines that—(a) the receiving jurisdiction is one in which the right to a fair trial cannot be guaranteed, or(b) the disclosure could result in actions being taken that would be incompatible with the right to a fair trial.(2) For the purposes of making a determination under paragraph (1) above, the Secretary of State must have regard to the opinion of—(a) subject matter experts, and(b) competent civil society groups.(3) Every 12 months the Secretary of State must publish and lay before Parliament an annual report detailing the determinations made under paragraph (1) in the previous 12 months.(4) The first report under paragraph (3) must be published and laid within 12 months of the day on which the Cyber Security and Resilience (Network and Information Systems) Act 2026 is passed.”
Lord Markham (Con)
My Lords, Amendment 73 stands in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Alton of Liverpool and Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, and the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, and in my name. Unfortunately, the noble Lord, Lord Alton, is unable to be here today, and I am very pleased to move the amendment on his behalf. The principle behind it is very simple, and I am delighted to see that it has cross-party support. I am sure and trust that it will have cross-Committee support as well.
We all recognise that cyber threats do not respect national borders. Effective cyber security therefore requires international co-operation and information sharing. I think that is something that we all believe in. A lot of measures that we have been talking about would actually give teeth and powers to these organisations to make sure this happens. However, the amendment shows when things can go too far and the risks around that. There must surely be limits on where information obtained under UK statutory powers can subsequently be sent and how it can be used.
The Bill will give NIS enforcement authorities the power to share information with overseas authorities. Amendment 73 would prevent such information being shared where the Secretary of State determines that the receiving jurisdiction cannot guarantee the right to a fair trial, or where disclosure could result in actions incompatible with that right. This is not a theoretical concern. We know that authoritarian states increasingly use apparently legitimate law enforcement processes as instruments of transnational repression. China provides perhaps the clearest example. There are well-documented concerns about the independence of its judiciary, particularly in national security cases, and the treatment of dissidents and human rights defenders.
Baroness Ludford (LD)
My Lords, having exchanged some gestures with the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, I think it is me next. I am pleased to support this amendment, which I have cosigned, and I very much agree with everything that the noble Lord, Lord Markham, said.
My remarks will principally have China in mind. China is not the only repressive regime, of course, but certain examples come to mind. Take, for example, the political prisoners in Hong Kong, such as Jimmy Lai and Joshua Wong, who was in the news recently when he was outrageously imprisoned, on so-called national security grounds, for democratic expression and protest. There are many other such examples, of course. There are also concerns about electroshock weapons being demonstrated inside the Chinese embassy here, and we recently saw a considerable eight-year sentence under our National Security Act for the manager of the Hong Kong Economic and Trade Office in the UK because of attempts at repression in the UK. So there are problems of justice—or, rather, injustice—in Hong Kong and China, but the tentacles of repression are very much reaching into this country, particularly for the Hong Kong diaspora.
We have seen other examples, such as Interpol red notices being misused, so there is a great concern that requests for digital information sharing that have a nefarious purpose could be made by authoritarian states under the Bill. We have had examples in Hong Kong of residential surveillance and holding individuals incommunicado for up to six months, without access to a lawyer or family, which amount to enforced disappearance and increase the risk of torture. We have the lack of judicial independence, as the noble Lord, Lord Markham, mentioned, which explicitly prevents a fair trial, particularly in so-called national security cases. The treatment of imprisoned activists undermines any semblance of a fair trial. There are concerns about the admission of evidence obtained through torture in Chinese courts, which includes Hong Kong. The situation in prisons is intolerable. I understand that Jimmy Lai is being held in conditions where he is practically boiling in the heat of his cell. Anyway, this gives the Committee an illustration of everything that I think noble Lords are already aware of.
I understand that, under the Extradition Act, co-operation between the UK and Hong Kong authorities is permitted on a case-by-case ad hoc basis; if that is incorrect, I would accept correction. But if, under the Bill, NIS data—including sensitive information such as IP addresses, digital fingerprints and user-level logs from digital service providers—could increase the risk of extradition to a country without a bilateral treaty with the UK then that could trigger special extradition arrangements, bypassing traditional human rights safeguards. We are on a slightly uncertain basis of extradition to Hong Kong, into which the Bill could add another element, so there are no permanent safeguards against extradition to Hong Kong and this data sharing could serve as an intelligence-gathering tool, which facilitates that process by providing the evidence which then justifies the filing of an ad hoc extradition request. So we could increase the likelihood of an ad hoc extradition request, which would make it more difficult for the British authorities.
Of course, we all know that many of the diaspora in the UK are living in fear of their lives—not just fear for their safety but for their lives, with bounties on their heads. We are also aware of all the cyber attacks that we understand are being launched from a Chinese direction. This NIS data could help to identify the architecture of the UK’s critical systems and choke points. It could also assist with the harassment of dissidents and human rights defenders living in the UK.
For all these reasons, I very much support the amendment. As the noble Lord, Lord Markham, said, if the Government believe that there are institutional drafting problems then it is incumbent on them—if they agree with us that there is a danger in this zone of sharing data with a repressive regime, and I cannot see how they would not—to come up with something which fits the existing parameters but prevents opening the door to assisting repression. That would certainly be against any values in this country.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, I will briefly follow the noble Lord, Lord Markham, and the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, in supporting this amendment. The noble Lord, Lord Alton, who is the architect of the amendment—indeed, of many amendments relating to China and human rights—unfortunately cannot be here, but both the noble Lord, Lord Markham, and the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, explained eloquently why this is important, particularly the focus on China.
Over the years, British Governments of all colours have had a very ambiguous policy towards China. On the one hand, in terms of trade and the economy, it is crucial. On the other, we have to admit that Chinese repression and China’s appalling human rights record mean that the Government need to tread very carefully in their relationships with China.
My interest in this came from the problems, particularly in Xinjiang province, with enforced organ harvesting of dissidents and followers of Falun Gong. When we say “forced organ harvesting”, we essentially mean that prisoners are killed so that their organs may be taken and sold, in essence, on an international market. China makes billions of pounds from this appalling practice.
Over the years, the noble Lord, Lord Alton, has chipped away, legislatively, at a number of pieces of legislation to, in essence, preclude British companies from supplying China with goods, medicines or chemicals that could then possibly be used for organ harvesting. There are a number of pieces of legislation where this happens. Obviously, this Bill is different, but I note the argument that the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, and the noble Lord, Lord Markham, made about why we should have special provisions for fair trials and the release of information to authoritarian countries.
I fully take the point from the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, who, like the noble Lord, Lord Markham, referred back to the debates in the other place and the difficulty of drafting. I hope that the Government might be prepared to talk, particularly to the noble Lord, Lord Alton, about whether we can find a way forward here.
Baroness in Waiting/Government Whip (Baroness Ramsey of Wall Heath) (Lab)
I thank noble Lords for their amendments. Obviously, we miss the noble Lord, Lord Alton, who spoke to me this morning to emphasise his regret at not being able to be here. I think many noble Lords know the important reason why he cannot be, which he was keen to stress.
I thank all the noble Lords who spoke on this important amendment, which seeks to restrict overseas information sharing where there could be a risk to an individual’s right to a fair trial. I am sympathetic to noble Lords’ concerns. We must be rigorous in protecting fundamental liberties and the rule of law, both nationally and internationally. I understand that DCMS officials—there is a double D in DCMS; the first D is silent, so I hope that noble Lords been advised accordingly—have been working with teams across government to consider these concerns carefully. From this, I am confident that the risks identified by noble Lords are very low.
The information-sharing powers are discretionary. Regulators are under no obligation to share information overseas under the Bill. We work closely with all regulators and know that they are extremely cautious, sharing information internationally only when it is necessary to do so and after considering whether disclosing that information is in line with their public duties, including those under the Human Rights Act. I have listened carefully to the noble Lord, Lord Markham, my noble friend Lord Hunt and the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, who all have their particular areas of interest and expertise. I will turn to a couple of those points in a minute.
In addition, the Bill adds further explicit safeguards that information must be disclosed only if it is relevant and proportionate. This requires regulators to exercise judgment and limit information only to that which is necessary for the purposes of the sharing. Requiring the Secretary of State to convene panels of experts in order to judge every instance of information sharing internationally would add a significant layer of bureaucracy. Given the very low risk and the safeguards already in place, that would be disproportionate and would slow or even halt legitimate essential international regulatory co-operation.
International collaboration has long been central to the NIS framework, with information-sharing essential to ensuring that tackling cyber threats is a global effort. The Bill ensures that our regime reflects the UK’s post-Brexit position by enabling effective co-operation with trusted international partners including close allies such as the US and Australia.
On the Hong Kong point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, there is no uncertainty regarding UK-Hong Kong extradition. The UK suspended the treaty in 2020 and passed legislation to reflect the suspension in UK domestic law in 2025, completing the severing of ties between the Hong Kong and UK extradition systems. I hope that that addresses that point.
Baroness Ludford (LD)
I apologise for interrupting the noble Baroness. My understanding was that, although the treaty had been suspended, there could be consideration on a case-by-case, ad hoc basis. Is that wrong? Is there a complete ban on extradition or, notwithstanding the suspension of the treaty, could there still be a case-by-case, ad hoc extradition?
Baroness Ramsey of Wall Heath (Lab)
I thank the noble Baroness. I will write to her on the case-by-case point.
Finally, I know that my noble friend the Minister will be very happy to meet noble Lords again to discuss this further, as she has done quite recently with the noble Lord, Lord Alton.
Lord Markham (Con)
I thank the Minister for her response and noble Lords for their involvement. As suspected, the Committee is completely united in what we are trying to achieve, and I am pleased to hear that the Minister is sympathetic. I think we all agree that the devil will be in the detail. That is why I am grateful for the offer of a meeting, which I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Alton, and many of us here will be delighted to take up.
I have a couple of concerns, and we will cover these in the meeting. As the Minister mentioned, there is no obligation for regulators. The question is: why leave it to their discretion? The Minister later said that there was concern about it being overburdensome on the Secretary of State’s officials to have to determine these cases. If it is too much of a burden for a group of experts, surely it is even less likely that regulators in all sorts of different fields are going to try to apply that same knowledge.
The concern about all of this is that, while the intentions are good, unless there are firm constraints in the Bill, it will just be something which, through no malcontent or wrong reason, is overlooked. That is why we feel it is very important that we have something in the Bill to add teeth to this. That is something that we would be delighted to explore further in meetings and on Report but at this point, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Kidron (CB)
“Liability of senior executivesAfter regulation 18 of the NIS Regulations insert—“Liability of senior executives(1) This regulation applies where a designated competent authority or the Information Commission has reasonable grounds to believe that—(a) a person that is a body corporate, a partnership (including a Scottish partnership) or an unincorporated body has failed to comply with a duty referred to in regulation 17(1), (2), (2ZA) or (2ZB), and(b) the failure was committed with the consent or connivance of, or is reasonably attributable to any neglect on the part of, a senior executive or group of senior executives, deliberately or carelessly. (2) The competent authority or the Information Commission may serve a notice of intention to impose a penalty on the senior executive(s) if it considers that a penalty is warranted having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case.(3) Before serving a senior executive(s) notice, the authority or the Information Commission must inform the senior executive(s), in such form and manner as it considers appropriate having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, of—(a) the alleged failure and the office’s alleged consent, connivance or neglect, and(b) how and by when representations may be made in relation to the alleged failure and any related matters.(4) A senior executive(s) notice must be in writing and must specify the following—(a) the reasons for serving the notice;(b) the alleged failure or failures and the senior executive(s) alleged consent, connivance, neglect or carelessness which are the subject of the notice;(c) any remedial actions required;(d) the amount of the penalty and the number of penalties which the authority or the Information Commission is minded to impose.(5) The authority or the Information Commission may, after considering any representations made in accordance with paragraph (3)(b), serve a penalty notice on the officer with a final penalty decision if satisfied that a penalty is warranted having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case.(6) A penalty imposed under this regulation must be of an amount which the authority or the Information Commission determines is appropriate and proportionate in the circumstances, having regard to the matters mentioned in regulation 18(6) for each infringement individually.(7) If the authority or the Information Commission is satisfied that no further action is required, having considered any representations submitted in accordance with paragraph (3)(b), it must inform the senior executive(s) in writing as soon as reasonably practicable.(8) In this regulation “senior executive(s)”—(a) in relation to a body corporate, means a CEO, director, manager, secretary or other similar senior executive of the body, or a person purporting to act in any such capacity;(b) in relation to a partnership, means a partner or a person having control or management of the partnership business, or a person purporting to act in any such capacity;(c) in relation to an unincorporated body other than a partnership, means a member of its governing body, or a person purporting to act in any such capacity.””Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment seeks to create provision in the Bill for executives or senior managers to be held responsible for failure to comply or report on the measures placed upon regulated bodies within the Bill.
Baroness Kidron (CB)
My Lords, Amendment 74 is in my name and those of the noble Baronesses, Lady Morgan and Lady Ludford. The noble Baroness, Lady Morgan, is very sorry that she cannot be in the Committee this afternoon but she particularly wanted me to thank the Minister for their helpful meeting last week. This amendment and Amendment 167 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, relate to the governance of regulated bodies that will be caught under this Act. The reason for this legislation is to reflect the rapidly changing cyber environment and to strengthen areas of current vulnerabilities of those organisations providing services critical to societal or economic life.
As we have discussed, regulators will be given powers to designate critical suppliers whose disruption could have a significant impact on essential services. As we have discussed in previous groups, many of us think the Bill does not go far enough in setting out who those critical suppliers are. We are going to see similar amendments in other forthcoming Bills that make provision for senior manager liability when new responsibilities are legislated. This is something that we have been through in other Bills: the only way to change the culture of an organisation is to start at the top.
I am sure that boards will grumble when they accept new duties, but they will keep their regulators happy were they to be in sight of the law. What really makes the difference to successful implementation is knowing that if it can be proven—I shall read out proposed new subsection (1)(b)—that
“the failure was committed with a consent or connivance of, or is reasonably attributable to any neglect on the part of, a senior executive or group of senior executives, deliberately or carelessly”,
that individual will be held responsible. I point noble Lords to recent court cases in the area of social media, where disclosure has repeatedly shown that senior executives knew of harm or stood in the way of harm mitigation for years. The idea that this might capture an unwilling or unwitting senior executive is shown clearly not to be the case by what I have just read out.
I understand that the Minister and the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan, also discussed this in the context of financial services and a regime introduced after the 2008 financial crash with the very intention of changing the culture of financial service businesses and focusing senior minds on the damage those businesses can do if they do not meet their responsibilities. A more recent example is the introduction of the consumer duty by the Financial Conduct Authority, which required relevant boards to appoint an individual consumer duty champion, something that the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan, was involved in. I also point to the Building Safety Act that was a response to the Grenfell Tower disaster.
I am hoping that the Government are sympathetic to this amendment, but if they find themselves unable to be sympathetic, I would be interested also to hear the Minister’s thoughts on whether we could require the relevant regulator to introduce a named senior manager regime, which indeed we did in the Online Safety Act.
The final point I make is that the senior manager must be senior. The intention behind the amendment is to change the culture of an organisation to ensure preventive action is taken to avoid penalties. As I said at the outset, culture change starts at the top. The services covered in the Bill are, by definition, considered by Ministers to be critical to national life, which means that the most senior governing body should be discussing them and responsible for them. While day-to-day management may be delegated, overall oversight and responsibility should sit at the top. For that reason, I support—as I know the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan, supports—Amendment 167, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford. Her proposed new clause would focus the minds of those at the most senior levels of organisations caught by the Bill, and I really hope that the Government support this ambition. I beg to move.
Baroness Ludford (LD)
My Lords, I am pleased to speak to Amendment 167 and grateful for the support from the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron—the support is mutual, as I co-signed her amendment. The two amendments are complementary, because Amendment 74 is about the liability of senior executives while Amendment 167 is about board oversight of an individual executive, responsibility and accountability. I was interested to hear the noble Baroness refer not only to financial and consumer conduct but to building safety as areas where such responsibility exists.
I am simultaneously involved in the Public Office (Accountability) Bill—the Hillsborough law—which will introduce a duty of ethical conduct, candour and transparency on public authorities and public officials. Perhaps what some of these other sectors have in common is that it has been an after-the-event thought that maybe boards and senior executives ought to have some kind of responsibility in this area. If we have had a catastrophe, often with a great deal of harm created—such as Hillsborough—maybe it would be a good idea if the people at the top, who are often extremely highly paid, took some interest in the area, rather than regarding it as some sort of lowly service, rather like cleaning the loos in the HQ building. I know it is now routine to refer to examples such as Jaguar Land Rover and Marks & Spencer, but there have been huge financial effects of cyber attacks. This is not some negligible issue; cyber security ought to be a core responsibility for senior people.
I am sitting close to the noble Baroness, Lady Harding, who today has referred to her own personal experience—we all remember it. I am sure it was painful for her and very public. She has actually been through it, so nobody knows better what it can be like when you have a big cyber data breach or cyber attack. It really is long past due that this ought to be a top responsibility of boards, directors and senior executives. Yet we understand—I think I get this from my noble friend Lord Clement-Jones—that the Government’s own Cyber Security Breaches Survey reveals that board-level ownership of cyber risk in the UK has declined from 38% to 27% over the past three years. It is going precisely in the wrong direction.
I do not think I need to persuade anyone here of how important it is for senior people in an organisation to be aware and carry not only responsibility, awareness and accountability but liability, so that it hits where it hurts if something goes wrong. Personally, it seems pretty much a no-brainer, and I hope the Minister will agree.
Lord Arbuthnot of Edrom (Con)
My Lords, I have added my name to Amendment 167, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, and I also support Amendment 74. I have done that in the knowledge that it is perfectly possible that the Minister will say that she wants to minimise regulation wherever possible—I get that. But I also get that we have been saying for years now that cyber security should be a board responsibility, that it requires knowledge and that that knowledge requires training. That is what Amendment 167 would provide for. We have been saying that, but very little has actually happened. If we are not to legislate about this, what will make people act? If the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, is right that board ownership of cyber security has declined, we have to do something.
I understand that people who start, say, a wine business or a book business are probably interested in wine or books, rather than cyber security. If they were interested in cyber security, they would probably start a cyber security business, in which they would probably make a great deal more money. But they have to be interested in cyber security in exactly the same way as they have to be interested in money—hence this proposed new clause, which I support.
Lord Birt (CB)
My Lords, I strongly support the drift of both amendments spoken to by the noble Baronesses, Lady Kidron and Lady Ludford. As I said the other day, I have sat on many boards with many distinguished people that contained a variety of experience in many jurisdictions, but I have not often come across a board that contains anyone with a pronounced understanding of technology, let alone the extremely narrow but deep area of complexity that is cyber security.
I hope noble Lords will forgive me for reminding the Committee of what I said on Tuesday: the way to achieve this objective is to require boards, at an appropriate level—I do not mean every board in the land—to have a cyber resilience audit each year, in the way that all major organisations have a very searching financial audit each year for the whole board, even though it may contain people who are there for different reasons: they may have marketing or sector expertise. But believe me, for every single board, when the team of auditors—who have been in the business for weeks and sometimes months—reports, it is listened to, and anything it advises is acted upon. We need to do exactly the same for cyber resilience.
Baroness Neville-Jones (Con)
My Lord, this Bill is largely directed at a given segment of the corporate sector. That reminds us, however, that there is a very large swathe of the corporate sector that we are not focusing on directly.
However, in the corporate sector generally, the board has to be interested in all risks, not just financial risks, or whether the book market or the wine market is in good shape; it must be able to protect the business and its shareholders. The board has a duty to the shareholders to do that. This is a very good opportunity to try to raise the level of performance in this area. The record is demonstrably not very good. This is an opportunity to help raise the level of performance and make it clear that if you take on a responsibility as a board director, you will have to be able to help conduct the business of that organisation at the highest possible level. I very strongly support Amendment 167.
Baroness Harding of Winscombe (Con)
My Lords, I also support Amendments 74 and 167. My experience is that boards that tell you that their cyber security is really good are the ones you should be most worried about. Boards that are really worried about it and can tell you where they think they are exposed might be in a slightly better place. There are too many organisations that will tell you that they are fine. Boards that are not doing what is set out in Amendment 167 are in trouble. It is entirely appropriate, and I fully support that amendment.
On Amendment 74, I would just like to draw a thread between the financial services senior management regime, what we have learned in the Online Safety Act and Tuesday’s debate about whether frontier AI models are included in the scope of the Bill. We have learned from the financial services senior management regime that when you make individual human beings accountable, they change. There is no doubt that the senior management regime in financial services has served to move the dial on the culture in financial services, and all previous attempts have failed.
Through the Online Safety Act, we have learned that various companies—not ones regulated by this Bill—have not taken seriously fines from Ofcom and simply refused to obey. We are living through an era when the tech sector wants to believe that it is exceptional and that laws from individual countries do not apply to it. It is therefore very important that we put into the Bill liability for senior executives, precisely because of what we have learned: in a sector that is doing it, you get culture change. In other digital legislation, where we do not have this, regulators’ decisions have actively been flouted. This is even more important if the Minister were to accept the amendments we debated on Tuesday—the noble Lord, Lord Tarassenko, has arrived just in time—because I firmly believe that the single most important part of regulating AI is holding the creators of the model accountable for their actions. Given that the biggest cyber security threats we face are the actions of agentic AI, I want to be able to build the framework that enables us to hold the managers and leaders developing those models, who currently say that this has nothing to do with them, accountable for their actions. I may be stretching it a bit, but I hope that Amendment 74 would be the beginnings of a framework that would enable us to hold senior tech titans to account.
Baroness Berger (Lab)
My Lords, I will speak quickly. I was just checking my records, particularly on Amendment 167. It was just under a year ago that I completed the FT board director programme, which was specifically around cyber risk for boards. In a room of around 50 people, we had a tabletop exercise on a real-life scenario about what one should do in the event of a very serious cyber crisis and cyber risk. I was struck by a number of things. In the room were people with vast waves of expertise and experience, none of whom was a technology expert. All said that no other members of their board had attended training like this. They were there because, having completed a board director programme, it piqued their interest, as it did mine, it was freely on offer and they decided to attend.
Having gone through that session, we covered things such as the regulatory experience, issues around how to challenge management in the event of one of these incidents, how you need to test organisational resilience, how you need to look at the risks involved, and how to respond decisively and to have the expertise and understanding to do so. It was very clear to me, even during that half-day exercise, that that training was not sufficient for me as a board director and member to be able to fulfil that role.
Having gone through that experience, I think for many reasons that this amendment is so important to ensure that boards across this country—be they private boards, FTSE boards or boards of regulated companies—can do their jobs effectively. In this world, which is extending—I echo the points made about AI—it is even more imperative that we have this amendment to ensure that boards are able to fulfil their roles effectively.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
My Lords, this has been a really useful debate, particularly because it has distilled all the considerable board experience—and, indeed, board training experience—around this Committee. I very much hope that the Minister listened to it with interest.
Amendment 74 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan, moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, would align the UK with the EU’s NIS2 framework. It would introduce personal civil liability for senior executives who deliberately or carelessly neglect cyber duties. My noble friend Lady Ludford’s Amendment 167 would mandate board-level oversight and technical training. In our view, to build national resilience, cyber security must become a fiduciary director’s personal responsibility. As the noble Baroness, my noble friend and the noble Lord, Lord Arbuthnot, have said, this change is long overdue and would be additional to other existing sectors. We need to learn from experience in the way mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Harding; I very much hope that we will do so in the course of the Bill.
Together, these two amendments target arguably the single greatest cultural—the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, rightly emphasised “culture”—and behavioural failure in UK cyber security today: the persistent treatment of cyber security by company boards as a delegated technical IT issue rather than a core personal and fiduciary leadership responsibility. The Government’s approach to corporate cyber governance has been almost entirely passive to date, I am afraid. Ministers have relied on voluntary guidance, such as the Cyber Governance Code of Practice, hoping that boards would voluntarily prioritise digital resilience.
The proof of this policy failure is undeniable. My noble friend quoted the Cyber Security Breaches Survey, which showed that board-level ownership of cyber risk has declined over the past three years. Of course, if boards neglect cyber security, that carries massive public costs, as seen in the recent major supply chain disruptions where, although company directors face strict personal legal liabilities under company law for signing off on financial accounts, they are permitted to treat systemic cyber vulnerabilities—vulnerabilities that can wipe hundreds of millions of pounds from the economy and paralyse critical national supply chains—with complete personal legal impunity.
My noble friend also reminded us of the catastrophic real-world cost of this boardroom neglect in the automotive sector, where a supply chain breach at Jaguar Land Rover cost an estimated £500 million, halted production lines for four months and forced the Government to step in with a £1.5 billion loan guarantee. We have seen the same in retail, also mentioned by my noble friend: the cyber attack on Marks & Spencer cost £300 million and contributed to a 99% collapse in pre-tax profits.
Amendment 74 would provide the direct legislative teeth that the Bill is missing by introducing personal civil liability for senior executives. It would amend the NIS regulations to establish that, where a regulated entity fails to comply with core risk management duties, and that failure was committed with the consent, connivance or deliberate or careless neglect of a senior executive, the regulator may impose a personal civil penalty.
Viscount Camrose (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, for opening this debate on behalf of my noble friend Lady Morgan of Cotes. I will come to her amendment in a moment, after I touch on Amendment 167, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford. Her comments, particularly about board ownership of cyber risk, were well founded and an extremely important foundation for the debate—as indeed were those of the noble Baroness, Lady Berger, who pointed out the difficulty of accelerating from zero cyber knowledge to sufficient. That is a non-trivial undertaking.
Amendment 167 is absolutely in line with the principle that we raised on the first day of this Committee in the form of Amendment 92B. It is the idea that executives should be held accountable for cyber security and resilience plans by their board and their shareholders, by reporting consistently on protections. This amendment, perhaps a little more explicitly, would require the same thing and I am very happy to support it.
I think Amendment 74 largely follows the same sentiment: that companies should and must be held accountable for their own cyber security. On this one, however, I need a little more persuasion. I am going to tread a little tentatively here, because I very much take on board the comments of my noble friend Lord Arbuthnot that we have not solved this problem yet and that carrying on as we are is probably not that sensible.
However, I do have some inner alarm bells ringing about this one. So, while we support the goal of making companies self-sufficient and accountable to their shareholders, this amendment would give the Information Commissioner powers to enforce compliance and sanction individual negligence. The concern here is that, as a matter of principle, the inner working of companies—who is accountable internally, to whom and for what—should be placed in a different category from the requirements placed upon them.
We should encourage companies to figure out internal issues themselves. By all means require board oversight of cybersecurity plans, as we have attempted to do, but my understanding is that this amendment would make it the Information Commissioner’s job to decide which individual is responsible when cyber attacks take place and are not adequately defended. I find this quite a tricky path forward, but I am clearly willing to keep talking and to be persuaded.
I am also concerned about the disincentives to become a director that this might put in place, because of what feels to me like the inherent uncertainties of the liabilities that may hang over board directors as they undertake these responsibilities. That being said, I, of course, completely agree with the underlying principle and look forward to hearing the Minister’s response.
Baroness Lloyd of Effra (Lab)
I thank the noble Baronesses who introduced their amendments, including the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, who did so on behalf of the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan, for raising the incredibly important topic of board accountability and senior management oversight. It is absolutely right that organisations, especially those delivering our essential services, are held properly accountable for their activities. That is why the Bill creates a more meaningful enforcement regime in terms of the maximum fines that can be levied—up to £17 million or 4% of turnover, whichever is higher—alongside a simpler process for taking that forward.
I also agree with the points made by the noble Baronesses, Lady Ludford and Lady Neville-Jones, and by my noble friend Lady Berger, on the extent of this being within the regulatory perimeter as well as the non-regulatory perimeter. Boards upskilling themselves and taking training seriously is absolutely imperative. That is why we have our Cyber Governance Code of Practice, which is at the heart of our approach to board and executive accountability. I personally feel that I am an extremely active proponent of this. For those who feel that we are not doing enough, I request their support in continuing to highlight that important code of practice in their own organisations, and on all the numerous boards they sit on, to make sure that we are governing cyber risk appropriately—and that many of the board directors they sit alongside are aware of it.
That is obviously not the limit of the approach that we are taking. We are going to introduce new security and resilience requirements in our secondary legislation. Our proposals will include a dedicated requirement on board-level governance, which will be consistent with the NCSC’s cyber assessment framework. It will cover issues such as organisational capability, senior responsibility, accountability for security and resilience, and effective risk escalation. In that way, we will connect the clarity on what is expected of boards with accountability through the enforcement regime.
I will touch on the point alluded to by the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, on the EU’s regime. Individual liability for board-level members is not mandatory under NIS2. Different EU member states have taken different approaches to implementing the directive in this respect, so there is not a single model of implementation that the EU is following.
To conclude, I would also concur with the point that the noble Viscount, Lord Camrose, made on the importance of attracting those with cyber expertise to take on board-level roles and be able to contribute as part of the board accountable to shareholders in that way. We do not want to introduce anything that might disincentivise either senior executives with cyber expertise or those at board level from taking these very important roles.
I believe that, together with the enforcement regime and the security and resilience requirements, those two things will cement the importance of board and executive accountability firmly into the regime, in the way that noble Lords have highlighted today. That is the right approach.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
My Lords, can I just check something before the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, rises? The Minister has uttered some very warm words about the responsibilities of directors, but am I right in thinking that in nothing of what she said is there any intent for the Bill to create a legal liability that compels directors in the way that these two amendments do, or any form of personal financial fiduciary duty on a director? What she is arguing for, despite the warm words, is, essentially, a voluntary scheme.
Baroness Lloyd of Effra (Lab)
We will consult on the security and resilience requirements that will come out of the Bill. They will contain a requirement on board governance and those expectations will be set out as a result of the Bill. The regulators and others enforcing the Bill will take that into account in their enforcement regime.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
I am sorry to press, but the Minister is saying that these are expectations. Will she write to us? There is a huge lack of clarity in the middle of those warm words. We take encouragement from the fact that the Government want to see boards take responsibility, but where are the teeth?
Baroness Lloyd of Effra (Lab)
Obviously, we have not yet gone out to consultation on the security and resilience requirements; we will do that after the Bill passes. I can certainly update on the process, the expectation and how that links with the enforcement duties in further detail.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
The Minister is also going to have to point out the power under which the Government are going to act to actually fix that liability, or make sure that the guidance, or whatever it is, is complied with, because we are talking about the power and the duties in primary legislation. It is all very well for the Government to say, “We’re going to produce guidance”, but unless there is something in the Bill that permits that and makes sure that the Government can make it stick, we are all going to feel dissatisfied.
Baroness Lloyd of Effra (Lab)
I am happy to write to explain how the security and resilience requirements fit into the structure of the Bill and the consultation and scrutiny that they will undergo.
Baroness Kidron (CB)
The noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, has done a lot of my work for me. I thank everyone who contributed. I was really struck by the expertise in this Room. We started this afternoon by talking about the importance of lived experience. I say very strongly to the Minister that I have been in the House long enough to see Acts of Parliament pass, be regulated and fail because we did not really understand how they were going to hit when they were in the world.
The comments on this group are really worth listening on, particularly those on Amendment 167. I say both to the noble Viscount, Lord Camrose, and to the Minister that there is such a high bar of connivance in Amendment 74. There is no accident. The words are “deliberately”, “knowingly”, et cetera—I read them out as part of my introduction. I will take up the noble Viscount’s offer to come to speak to him and persuade him, and I ask the Minister to really think about this, because we have heard that culture does not change without an incentive. This is an incentive to say that if you are seen to grossly mislead and undermine the regulation, then you are liable. That is what good law does. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Ludford
“Services to support political parties to be specified as essential activities(1) The Secretary of State must, within six months of the day on which this Act is passed, make regulations under section 24(3) to specify that an activity carried out for the primary purpose of the operation of a registered political party is an essential activity.(2) In this section “registered political party” means a party registered under Part 2 of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000.(3) Regulations made under subsection (1) must designate one or more appropriate regulatory authorities for the specified activities.”Member’s explanatory statement
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to specify services with the primary aim to support the operation of political parties as essential activities under Part 3, bringing them within the scope of the Bill’s security and resilience regime.
Baroness Ludford (LD)
My Lords, this is a group of rather wide scope. I am kicking off. I will also speak to Amendment 168 in my name so as not to speak twice. It is on an entirely different subject from Amendment 79, so we will probably have quite a long debate on this group.
Amendment 79 is about including political parties in this Bill. My honourable friend Victoria Collins MP made the same case in the other place, tabling a proposed new clause to designate political parties as carrying out essential activities. We have discussed, over several days, how cyber security is not just a technical matter confined to server rooms and IT departments; it is a matter of national resilience, economic strength, the functioning of society and, I argue, democratic integrity. On this last count, the Bill is silent.
I remind the Committee that, between August 2021 and October 2022, as we later learned, hostile actors sat undetected inside the systems of the Electoral Commission and exfiltrated copies of the electoral registers—an intrusion the Government attributed to a China state-affiliated actor. There was apparently reconnaissance against the email accounts of parliamentarians who had spoken out against China. So we are hearing of more and more denial-of-service attacks and other incidents affecting critical national infrastructure, which may have some knock-on effect on our democratic structures. Think about what political parties hold: membership lists, canvassing databases covering millions of electors, data on political opinion and special category data of the most sensitive kind—perhaps precisely the material valuable for espionage, transnational repression and targeted disinformation in a campaign period.
Let us think about the kind of defences that are protecting this information. Those of us who have experience of local party activity know that we are normally talking about a small office with a handful of staff and many volunteers, not massive enterprises—and they themselves have been the subject of cyber attacks. We perhaps have quite a weak link at the heart of our democracy.
The National Cyber Security Centre has defending democracy guidance, but this is voluntary, done on an opt-in basis and unenforced; there is no duty to report an incident, no assessment framework, no designated regulator and no floor beneath which a party cannot fall. So there is weakness around the cyber security of political parties and of electoral infrastructure. I am sure that the Minister will tell me that parties are not infrastructure—indeed they are not—but the Bill encompasses data centres and managed service providers on the basis that disruption there would significantly affect the day-to-day functioning of society. If the compromise of a major party’s voter database in the final week of a general election would not meet that test, I struggle to think what would.
Nothing in this amendment invites the Government into the internal affairs of parties; it asks only that the organisations through which the British people exercise their democratic voice are held to a basic standard of resilience. Democracy is essential infrastructure. It is a privilege that we must defend with the utmost priority, and the Bill should reflect that.
I will cover another, completely different matter in my Amendment 168. This amendment was prompted because, probably like others here, in July I had several notifications from either a charity, an arts organisation or an academic organisation—I cannot remember; I think I had four or five altogether—warning me of a data breach. This was a named company—I think it has been in the public domain—called Beacon. It experienced a cyber security incident involving unauthorised access to its systems. I understand it stores data on the membership and customers of a lot of organisations—about 1,000, I read.
This is a probing amendment because I am asking the Government where organisations like this sit. They are variously described as a customer relationship management service provider or a software as a service relationship provider. I do not think they fall into RMSP or RDSP; they are not cloud computing, they are not an online marketplace or search engine and so on. Maybe, arguably, they are a managed service or IT management, support, maintenance or monitoring. I do not know what the precise relationship is between the organisation and the Beacon customer relationship management service provider. I do not really understand it, and the point of the amendment is to find out whether the Government know where it sits in the sphere of cyber and data services. They will often have lots of personal data, including date of birth, contact data, records of donations and memberships, and the booking of events. There is quite a lot where you could profile somebody and find out a lot about them, so it is quite risky to have all of that in unauthorised hands.
I think these breaches triggered reporting duties to the Information Commissioner under the GDPR, but, as far as I know, I do not think that a comparable incident would trigger this Bill’s incident reporting duties. I do not know where these organisations fit, so can the Minister tell me where they live in the ecosystem and what could or should be done to try to increase their support for the organisations that they work for? I beg to move.
Baroness Berger (Lab)
My Lords, I wish to speak to Amendment 81A in my name. I was glad to add my name to Amendments 3, 8 and 13 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron. I am sorry that I was unable to speak to them on Tuesday due to some caring responsibilities.
Amendment 81A is all about education. Our British educational institutions sit at the heart of our communities. They are key to developing our children and young people, and helping them grow, supporting them through the most important developments of their lives. This year, the UK was ranked as having the third best public education system in the world, something that we should be so proud of but which we must safeguard. We have seen our education system change rapidly in the past decade. We now have exam results revealed via an app. We have homework set through online portals. I receive it weekly for both of my children. Increasingly, vast amounts of student data is being stored online, including around attainment. If our young people are to be properly supported, that must extend beyond the classroom to the network and information systems now essential to their education—a point only reinforced as universities and colleges continue to further embrace online learning.
Exam results determine a young person’s future opportunities. We all remember just a couple of weeks ago the pictures, the interviews of the young people and the elation of many 16 and 18 year-olds as they received and revealed their GCSE and A-level results. We owe it to the next generation to do everything we can to give them the best possible chances—to protect the integrity of the system that determines their future and to prevent the chaos that could follow if, for example, university place allocation, clearing or accommodation processes could not proceed. Anyone who might have friends or family whose 18 year-olds are currently going through that process knows it is frenetic enough at this time—scrambling to get a place for young people who might not have made their grades, changing universities, changing courses, trying to get a university spot or university accommodation.
We have already seen what chaos looks like on a small scale. Noble Lords perhaps will recall students who sat their A-level physics paper with Cambridge International who had their results voided after just one paper was leaked online, with a substitute mark calculated from other components. That was just one paper from one exam board, and it was still enough to undermine confidence in the results for every student affected. We need to look no further than the terrible experience recently in India where the National Testing Agency’s medical entrance exam results were withdrawn after a paper was leaked. It triggered mass protests and, tragically, at least 21 reported suicides among students who had sat the exam. If a single compromised paper can cause that level of devastation, we cannot afford to leave our education system exposed to a compromise on a grand scale.
Amendment 81A would establish that the education sector is an essential activity by requiring the Secretary of State to make regulations under Part 3 of the Bill. This would bring within scope any institution that provides primary, secondary, further or higher educational and vocational training. It includes exam boards involved in setting, marking or awarding and grades, higher education admission bodies, and any body that is essential to the provision of primary or secondary education that holds substantial volume of student or staff data. The obligations would require that education bodies take appropriate and proportionate technical and organisational measures to manage risks to the security of their network and information systems. The bodies must: take appropriate and proportionate measures to prevent and minimise the impact of cyber incidents, with a view to ensuring continuity of service; have regard to the state of the threat; ensure that they have a high level of security appropriate to the risk; and have regard to any relevant guidance issued by their regulator.
Lord Birt (CB)
Let me just say, very briefly, that, as I made clear earlier in the week, the scope of the Bill is far too narrow. I suggested and will continue to suggest that we have to extend the definition of essential services. I remind all noble Lords, despite all the things we have been talking about this afternoon, that the organisations in the framing of the Bill, as drafted, are our national infrastructure sectors, not the great width of the economy or the public sector. In my amendments, I have suggested that we should have a definition of essential services that covers the economy—JLA and Marks & Spencer are not covered in the Bill—and society in general. We have just heard an excellent account of why education has to be included, as does defence and security. I do not think that we should be picking and mixing and putting a small number of sectors in the Bill. We need a conceptual approach to what we bring into the orbit of the Bill and we need a process in the Bill to ensure that that happens.
Lord Russell of Liverpool (CB)
My Lords, just quickly, I will back up the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, on Amendment 168. I, like many other noble Lords, have been involved with a variety of charities that were impacted by the cyber security breach at Beacon CRM, which has about 1,500 charities that store an enormous amount of personal data. I looked at its website, and perhaps this will emphasise to the Minister the problem that we face. This is what this website, which had a major security breach in the past, says about its security:
“The secure choice for security-conscious charities. Beacon has all of the security certifications and features that you should expect from your CRM, and we’re adding more all the time”.
It says that it is ISO 27001:2022 certified and Cyber Essentials Plus certified and that
“Cyber Essentials Plus is the highest level of certification in the UK government’s Cyber Essentials scheme, and includes a technical audit of the Beacon team’s endpoint devices”.
It says that it has “World-class infrastructure” and that it is “A UK-based system”. If I was a potential customer of Beacon reading all that, I would feel a very false sense of security about the level of knowledge and defence that its systems have. That is clearly not the case. There is a clear, major mismatch between the degree of confidence that organisations such as Beacon have in their own cyber security and the reality of how feeble and weak they actually are. Before this happens again and again, it would be helpful to look at this more closely and see whether we need to do more.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Birt, was right to remind us that we perhaps need something rather more generic and comprehensive when we are assessing whether a particular sector should be brought into the Bill, but that does not mean that we should not use this group of amendments to illustrate that the Bill at the moment is not nearly comprehensive enough in the way it is structured and the sectors that it contains.
The Bill remains stubbornly wedded to what we might call the traditional 2018 five utilities model: water, energy, transport, health and core telecoms. But we have moved on from that world. Today, systemic digital risk does not respect what might be called 20th century arbitrary utility boundaries for critical national infrastructure. An adversary seeking to disrupt our society or blackmail the UK does not need to compromise a power station; it can strike our democratic institutions, food distribution networks, university research labs, orbital satellites or software supply chains.
Amendment 79, tabled by my noble friend Lady Ludford, designates services supporting registered political parties as essential activities. Hostile state actors, from Russian GRU units to Chinese state-sponsored espionage networks, are actively targeting our political parties. As my honourable friend and my noble friend have argued strongly, political parties are a vital part of our constitutional machinery, yet they operate on shoestring budgets with high staff turnovers, heavily reliant on consumer-grade IT and voluntary workers, while holding vast tranches of confidential voter files, donor databases and what we might call strategic policy intelligence. If a hostile power exfiltrates or manipulates a major political party’s systems, the threat is not just a commercial data breach but the subversion of our electoral integrity and democratic sovereignty. To leave our political parties outside statutory NCSC cyber standards is an indefensible democratic blind spot that Amendment 79 would decisively rectify.
Amendment 80, tabled by my noble friend Lady Northover, who sadly cannot be present, addresses the fact that the Bill remains frozen in that 2018 world. It will bring critical manufacturing, industrial food production and large-scale food distribution networks under statutory cyber resilience duties. Our contemporary manufacturing and retail logistics networks are no longer purely mechanical operations; they are vast, hyper-automated cyber-physical systems. They run on automated warehouse robotics, internet-connected telemetry and algorithmic just-in-time delivery pipelines.
Consider the manufacturing of critical transport equipment. When Jaguar Land Rover suffered a catastrophic supply chain cyber breach, the damage was not confined to a single company balance sheet. Production lines were frozen for four months, hundreds of component manufacturers were dragged to the brink of collapse and the economic fallout cost between £1.6 billion and £2.1 billion, making it the costliest cyber attack in British history and forcing the state to step in with loan guarantees. In an economy that depends to a large extent on vehicle transport and haulage equipment, leaving critical automotive and transport manufacturing outside statutory NIS protections is an invitation to systemic economic blackmail.
Even more acute is the vulnerability of our food supply. Modern food processing and supermarket distribution operate with less than 48 hours of inventory buffer. When Marks & Spencer was hit by a major ransomware incident, it cost £300 million to remediate and wiped 99% from its statutory pre-tax profits. As I said earlier, if a hostile state or sophisticated ransomware syndicate executes a co-ordinated attack against the central routeing software of two major distribution operators, supermarket shelves across our cities would begin emptying within two days.
Amendment 80 provides a clear, proportionate statutory safeguard. It includes an explicit turnover threshold of £12 million, ensuring that local bakeries, independent farmers and small shops face zero regulatory burden. It targets solely the industrial food processors and large-scale distributors whose distribution would threaten the daily functioning of society. In doing so, it aligns the UK with the EU’s NIS2 directive, which has already brought food production, processing and critical manufacturing under statutory cyber obligations. Our European neighbours recognise that you cannot have national resilience if your food supply can be halted by a single malicious click, so why are this Government leaving Britain’s food supply chain completely exposed?
That brings me to Amendment 81, also in the name of my noble friend Lady Northover, which designates the space and satellite sector as an essential activity under Part 3. The omission of the space sector from primary cyber security legislation in 2026 is nothing short of extraordinary. The space sector is formally identified in the Government’s own industrial strategy as a core national growth driver. Yet the Bill treats orbital infrastructure as if it were entirely invisible. Our entire critical national infrastructure, from financial transaction timestamps across the City of London and automated container port logistics, to emergency blue-light dispatch, cellular networks and high-voltage grid synchronisation, relies absolutely on satellite positioning, navigation and timing—PNT.
Ground-truth economic studies demonstrate that a five-day blackout of satellite positioning systems would inflict a staggering £5.2 billion direct loss on the UK economy. Furthermore, the UK possesses world-leading capability in earth observation and small satellite manufacturing, with sovereign launch facilities advancing at SaxaVord. But satellites, ground uplink stations and space telemetry are dual-use systems. As the House of Lords special inquiry committee on space, which I sat on, has heard throughout its evidence sessions, satellite communications and orbital command links are under relentless, daily cyber probing, jamming and spoofing by hostile state adversaries. An exploit deployed against the satellite operator’s ground command software can sever communications, blind environmental monitoring or hijack commercial orbital satellites.
Amendment 81 would rectify this strategic blind spot. It would place a statutory requirement on the Secretary of State, within six months, to make regulations bringing the space sector into scope as an essential activity. It specifically covers the operation of space objects and launch facilities, satellite communications, earth observation and critical PNT services, while requiring the Government to designate an appropriate regulatory authority such as the CAA or Ofcom to supervise compliance.
Before moving on to my own amendments, I welcome Amendment 81A, moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Berger, covering the education sector. Our world-class universities are the engines of the UK science and technology prowess, holding billions of pounds of cutting-edge IP, defence research and quantum computing prototypes. They are under relentless cyber espionage assault from foreign adversaries, while centralised bodies such as UCAS and qualification boards, as the noble Baroness said, hold sensitive data on millions of young people. Bringing education into scope under Part 3 is an urgent national security necessity.
I have tabled new amendments—Amendments 81B, 81C and 81D—which address the single most gaping, indefensible and dangerous structural failure of the Bill: the complete and absolute exclusion of central government, public authorities, local councils and our core democratic electoral infrastructure from the scope of our national cyber security perimeters. How can we claim to be building a genuinely cyber resilient nation when the public administration itself is left out entirely in the cold? I wish I had more time to expand on those three amendments, but I will content myself with hoping that the Minister will have considered those amendments and will come back with a positive response. Of course, we strongly look forward to an answer to my noble friend Lord Russell of Liverpool’s questions on Amendment 168.
Lord Markham (Con)
My Lords, we have heard very compelling cases from all noble Lords who have spoken on this group about why a particular sector should be included. I will not go through the list—it was gone through very well by the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, a moment ago—but I think we can all agree that each one was a compelling case. That probably illustrates the wider problem, because we are almost getting into a game of cyber whack-a-mole here, where we can see them popping up left, right and centre. So our approach, with Amendments 92 and 92A in my name and those of my noble friends Lord Camrose and Lord Holmes, is to try to take a more strategic view, very much reflecting some of the views that the noble Lord, Lord Birt, was mentioning earlier as well. They ask the Government to assess strategically important entities outside the current NIS regime and consider whether they should be brought into scope where a cyber attack would have a sufficiently serious impact on the economy or the day-to-day functioning of society.
We are not asking for another long list of businesses to be regulated, because we need to be careful about the regulatory burdens that we are putting on people. Instead, Amendment 92A proposes a risk-based test and asks these questions: what would actually happen if this organisation went down? Would essential services stop? Would very important supply chains fail? Would significant parts of the economy cease to function? If the answer to those is yes, surely the Government should at least assess whether that organisation belongs within our national cyber security perimeter. This also illustrates why we need to see the national cyber action plan. It was promised this summer; we are now in September and, considering that this is very pertinent to everything we are talking about in Committee, I ask the Minister when we will see the plan.
I will highlight one further issue, which the noble Baroness, Lady Berger, illustrated very well, in the area of the data held in certain organisations, particularly in education. We all know that the reason that a lot of these organisations are attractive targets is not because of the essential services they often carry out but because they carry enormous quantities of valuable and sensitive data. Again, this was very much my experience with the attack on Synnovis when I was Health Minister. It caused massive disruption for operations and diagnostic services in London, but the question was: why was that organisation holding so much information in the first place? It had names and addresses of people going back 20 years, their test results and their full medical records, and it did not need any of it at all. It could all have been anonymised, and it definitely did not need to hold it for 20 years.
To me, the question we really need to answer—this speaks to an amendment we will be talking about later—is: what data do all these public bodies really need to hold? Of course, if the data is not there in the first place to be stolen, or if it is not interesting or valuable, then that is the best line of defence, because there is no reason for there to be a cyber attack on it. As I say, we will talk further on that on Amendment 174E, but the principle is directly relevant to what we are talking about here.
Before I come to the end, I have a special request from my colleague here, who I think knows a thing or two. I am told on good authority that the last government AI regulation White Paper has a lot of relevance and synergies here, so I would request the Minister to look at that between now and Report to see where, as I say, there are synergies and learnings from it.
In summary, first, we should systematically identify the organisations whose compromise would cause the greatest damage, as per our Amendment 92A, and, secondly, we should reduce both their vulnerability and attractiveness as targets, including by reducing the data prize available to the attacker, as per our Amendment 174E, which we will come to later on. That, to me, is genuine cyber resilience: not merely making the safe harder to crack but, wherever possible, ensuring that there is nothing valuable inside the safe to steal.
I hope the Minister will respond both on the important sectors raised by noble Lords and to the central question behind Amendment 92A: what systematic test are the Government applying to determine which strategically important organisations should fall within the NIS regime, and will that regulatory perimeter keep pace as technology and the threats change?
Baroness Lloyd of Effra (Lab)
My Lords, I thank noble Lords for raising so many aspects of the scope of the Bill. I recognise the sentiment among noble Lords today about the importance of expanding its scope. Our approach has been to target regulatory requirements on a select number of essential services, while using non-regulatory but effective measures to improve the cyber security and resilience of the wider economy.
As I set out at Second Reading, I have asked my officials to work across government to consider what additional services would merit being brought into scope of the regime in future. This will allow us to make a holistic and considered approach. To ensure our assessment is appropriately prioritised, I would first like to focus on the CNI sectors not already covered by the NIS regime.
I share the intent behind the objective from the noble Viscount, Lord Camrose—which the noble Lord, Lord Markham, spoke to—that the process to expand the scope of the regime should be rigorous and evidence based. As set out in the Bill, for something to be defined as a new essential activity under its powers, the Secretary of State must be satisfied that the activity is essential to the economy or the day-to-day functioning of society in all or part of the UK. This is reserved for the most vital activities in our nation. To the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Birt, I believe that that is a clear test. In reaching a decision, the relevant departments would need to carry out a risk assessment and any economic assessments, and consider whether inclusion is proportionate. This is part of normal policy development. After that, proposals would be subject to consultations and the affirmative procedure.
The noble Viscount proposed in his amendment that assessment for inclusion be carried out on an entity-by-entity basis, which obviously differs from the sectoral approach we have taken thus far. Setting out the detail that would need to be published according to the amendment could lead to a release of information about individual companies that could pose commercial or national security risks, due to their criticality. I think that the sectoral approach is better. As others have said today, looking at a systemic approach to the sectors is the right way to look at what is in the statutory approach.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
I am sorry to interrupt the Minister, but clarification along the way would be very helpful. She has asked her officials to see what other sectors should be brought in and has given an indication of the kind of test, but we are dealing with a bit more fog here. Is she promising us something in primary legislation or will it appear in secondary legislation? Will it just be something that government policy will cover, and we will have no say on the kinds of sectors that should be included?
For instance, the Minister is the Space Minister. Do we have an indication that space, or any of the key activities within space, will be included? Do we have any white smoke from the department as to whether that sector will be included? Will we hear by Report what sectors might be included? It is all a bit vague, and that does not give us a great deal of assurance.
Baroness Lloyd of Effra (Lab)
I was referring to the process by which sectors can be brought into scope of the Bill, as set out in it and using the powers in the Bill. That would follow the process I just mentioned, which would be subject to consultation and the affirmative procedure. That is the process that I am referring to.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
But the powers are further down the track; they are under secondary legislation. I am assuming the Minister is promising that the Secretary of State will set out the criteria by which a new sector is brought in. Is that right? Do we have any indication, apart from what the Minister has said today in response to the noble Lord, Lord Markham, as to what those criteria will be?
Baroness Lloyd of Effra (Lab)
I have highlighted a few of those criteria regarding the extent to which the activity is essential to the economy or the day-to-day functioning of society in all or part of the UK. Obviously, we already have the list of critical national infrastructure. We need to go through a whole process, as others have mentioned. We would need to make our assessment and then consult with industry on that, so there is a process to go through here. That process of consultation and talking to industry, or any affected sector, is absolutely critical. I am absolutely happy to update noble Lords and engage further ahead of Report on this.
In terms of the report referenced in Amendment 92A, I do not think we would need a statutory obligation to bring this report back, as set out. I mentioned the focus on entities rather than sectors, and it is better to look at the sectoral approach.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
My Lords, if the Minister could commit to adding that to the conversations we are bound to have to have between now and Report—
Baroness Lloyd of Effra (Lab)
I am not only committing; I am offering, so I am happy to have the noble Lord confirm that that would be good. I am absolutely offering that as part of the engagement ahead of Report.
I have heard the numerous areas that have been raised for inclusion in the Bill. We should look in a methodical and sensible way at these and at the implications—as we have previously discussed—for the obligations that will placed on any entities that come within the scope of the Bill, such as incident reporting, board accountability and so on, so that we do this in a very sensible manner. That is why this is the right approach to take.
Lord Birt (CB)
Can I ask the Minister to comment on another point that the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, raised? Why should this not apply to the higher reaches of government? I ask the Minister specifically: what is her view of 607,000 records being stolen, just weeks ago, from the Department for Education?
Baroness Lloyd of Effra (Lab)
I absolutely intend to talk about the public sector. Given the numerous sectors that have been raised, I also want to respond individually on each sector. I absolutely agree that all sectors need to improve their cyber resilience; it is not the case for only those in the regulatory perimeter. It is also not the only way to improve; we should improve things right now. There is funding, and there are activities going on in all of these sectors that we might talk about—sometimes with public funding, sometimes with public advice and sometimes through industry groups.
I have spoken a little already about the cyber resilience pledge, which over 100 companies have now signed. It sets out the absolute best practice and what actions to take, including making cyber a board-level responsibility, following the Cyber Governance Code of Practice, signing up to the early warning service and taking a risk-based approach to requiring cyber essentials across supply chains.
In the retail sector, the DBIST industry-led Retail Sector Council is working with experts and business representatives to consider cyber security.
In respect of the space sector, it is absolutely critical; I could not agree more on the importance of PNT and satcoms, which underpin a huge amount of UK economic activity. The UK Space Agency is already strengthening cyber resilience in practice through the development of a space cyber assurance framework for the space sector, intending to help operators understand and demonstrate cyber resilience in a proportionate and practical way.
The UKSA also supports the provision of threat briefings and is working with industry on the potential development of a space information-sharing analysis centre. This would improve the flow of threat information, warnings and good practice between government and industry, and support links to international networks, such as the US-led global Space ISAC model. That would help operators to understand emerging threats and to act quickly.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
My Lords, at the risk of irritating the Minister even further, it is great to hear of some of this activity, but that is not the same as bringing it under the terms of the Bill.
Baroness Lloyd of Effra (Lab)
It is not the same. I wish to stress that the importance of strengthening cyber resilience can happen outside of legislation being put in place. There are many efforts that can go on to improve cyber resilience.
Moving on to the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, and her question about the scope, as well as the questions of the noble Lord, Lord Russell of Liverpool, about CRMs and so on, I do not know the specifics of this CRM. I am very happy to write after hearing of the attributes that were enumerated for its characteristics. Businesses that offer software as a service are in scope of the NIS regulations as cloud computing services, under the RDSP definition, if they meet the definitions in the Bill. In the case of the particular company that was mentioned, I do not know whether that would meet any definitions in the Bill.
Data protection legislation is obviously in place already, and processors are meant to have the systems in place for regularly testing, assessing and evaluating the effectiveness of their measures for ensuring the security of that processing. That legislation is already in place.
Moving on to the public sector, I will respond to the questions from the noble Lords, Lord Birt and Lord Clement-Jones. The Government are already taking equivalent steps to secure their own essential activities through the Government Cyber Action Plan, published in January this year. That plan applies to government departments, arm’s-length bodies and wider public sector organisations. It sets out clear expectations, targets and milestones at all levels to transform cyber security and resilience in the public sector. The outcomes of the plan are aligned with those of the Bill; there will be a consistent approach to strengthening cyber resilience across the public sector. Government departments are accountable for setting expectations and overseeing resilience across the sectors and organisations within their purview, while individual organisations remain responsible for managing their own cyber security and resilience.
This brings me on to Amendment 81A—
Viscount Camrose (Con)
I thank the Minister for her point about the Government Cyber Action Plan, but do the strength of her arguments there not completely reinforce the urgent need to have the national cyber action plan, so that we can assess overall the cyber strategy of the nation and the role of the Bill within that strategy?
Baroness Lloyd of Effra (Lab)
The cyber action plan is a very thorough document. It sets out a plan over many years to improve the cyber resilience of the Government and the public sector, which I think we all agree is absolutely needed. The fact that incidents are still occurring in the public sector reinforces the need to act. We will publish the cyber action plan and, as I mentioned two days ago, I will keep the Committee and the House updated on progress on that.
Education is an incredibly important sector, and the Department for Education takes an active approach to supporting the sector. This includes the Cyber Security Hub, providing schools in England with guidance, while the standards for schools and colleges help institutions to understand their cyber security requirements. Colleges have been required to meet cyber essentials since 2024, with more than 80% of colleges now meeting this requirement.
I come to the question of MHCLG and local government. The department is also taking meaningful steps and working with local authorities to increase their cyber defences. This includes the rollout of the cyber assessment framework for local government, which would be the equivalent to what is required in the cyber Bill, and the recently proposed revisions to the best value statutory guidance to set new expectations for local authorities on cyber resilience. That best-value duty provides an immediate and proportionate route to improving through existing governance and accountability mechanisms. In addition, MHCLG is supporting councils directly.
The question of electoral infrastructure and political parties, raised in Amendments 79 and 81D, is also incredibly important, as noble Lords have set out. The Government work with the NCSC to mitigate risks there. MHCLG specifically works with local authorities to strengthen their electoral cyber resilience and ensure electoral data is adequately protected. The Joint Election Security and Preparedness Unit has responsibility for co-ordinating election security. The MHCLG digital electoral services team maintains robust incident response arrangements to protect electoral systems and citizen data. As the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, mentioned, the NCSC also has a broad package of support for political parties, candidates and elected representatives. This includes regular engagement with parties, which can access the NCSC’s active cyber defence services, as well as NCSC providing tailored advice to parties and candidates.
I have set all that out because the motivation behind bringing these matters into scope is to engender further action. I want to emphasise that further action is happening, whether or not it is within the scope of the regulatory perimeter.
Baroness Berger (Lab)
The Minister pointed to three examples of where education is considering issues around cyber security, specifically in schools and only 80% of colleges. One of the concerns I outlined in my contribution was around the examining bodies for both our secondary schools and universities. There was no mention of universities. Can I understand a bit more about how they are currently being considered, if they are not going to be included within the scope of this Bill?
Baroness Lloyd of Effra (Lab)
The general approach is that the lead government department has responsibility for ensuring cyber security in the areas that it covers. I will need to write to my noble friend specifically on exam boards and examining authorities. I know that the DfE supports bodies that support higher education and further education, but for further details, I will come back to her.
More broadly, I am happy to talk further with noble Lords between now and Report, and perhaps after, on the approach to assessing what should be within the regulatory perimeter and at what speed that can be advanced.
Baroness Neville-Jones (Con)
Can I ask a couple of questions and make one comment? The more we hear about the conversation that is taking place on the Bill, the more anomalous the factors that have been chosen or included in the scheme become. Let me give the example of space. Plenty of us now receive our internet connection via satellite. It is inevitably an intimate part of the networking system of cyber security. What we appear to be told is that some parts of the telecoms and internet world are going to be governed by the Bill, but other parts, which are equally integrated and important, are going to be covered separately by a special different arrangement—they are not included. For example, as I understand what the Minister said about space, it is not going to be included in this Bill. With the greatest possible respect to the Minister, it does not make sense.
My question is: in the period ahead of us, could the Government have another look at the whole question of the scope of the Bill? This seems to be one of the problems that lies between us. As a result, Members are now trying to shove into the Bill all sorts of things on the grounds that they are essential services—some of which clearly need to be there, but for others it is arguable that they do not.
I heard what the Minister said about the action plan. I have read the action plan, and it is a good plan, but it lays a heavy responsibility on a department that no longer exists—DSIT. The function is set out so well and is important to keeping government departments up to the mark, which is going to be done separately. Where is that responsibility now going to sit? It will require a very considerable degree of expertise on the part of those conducting this system of keeping people up to the mark. How is that going to be done?
It seems to me that local government requires something of the same. Government is a whole thing. It is not that some things can be done in central government without regard to their implementation by local government or vice versa. Are the Government going to extend the system that is being mapped out in the action plan for government to local government as well, in order to get the same standard of performance and integrity of systems?
Baroness Lloyd of Effra (Lab)
Let me work backwards here. The noble Baroness makes a very good point: the services delivered at local level often mirror those at central government level. At the moment, we are consulting on the question of the best value duty to give additional prominence. One of the issues with mapping these requirements into local government is that many different services are indeed provided. We may need to come back to that in more detail.
The government cyber unit now resides within DCMS. The team has transferred over and is up and running; I have spoken to them many times recently. The unit is very active in progressing the government cyber action plan as per the timetable and the target plan.
On the question about the approach to looking at other sectors to bring in, that is why I mentioned at Second Reading that I had already asked my officials to work across government to consider what additional services would merit being brought in. I mentioned earlier today that focusing on CNI services not already covered by the NIS regime would be the right place to start.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
My Lords, will the Minister show some greater enthusiasm for her own regulatory scheme? I hope that the criteria that she adopts within the department as to whether certain sectors are going to be brought in will be about not only the criticality of the services but the need for transparency on the incidents themselves. We have had this whole debate about notification being beneficial so that organisations such as the NCSC actually know what is going on, that we the public know what is going on and the level of threat, and that our intelligence services are fully apprised.
The noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Jones, was entirely right on critical sectors, such as space. If there is no duty of notification on, say, a satellite manufacturer or something, we will all be in the dark. The Government rightly introduced this Bill to introduce greater transparency and duties on some very important sectors. We simply want to make sure that we capture all the important sectors and that they are all subject to the duty. This shying away from the Government’s own framework seems completely contrary.
Baroness Ludford (LD)
I cannot possibly reply on any matters other than political parties. I am left unpersuaded that political parties are sufficiently supported and protected. Maybe bigger parties are not run on a shoestring as much as some of us. I am not talking about national level, but at the local level it could be justified to see some beefing up of the obligations and the support required.
Political parties come in for a lot of flak. They are always getting bashed around—“Who wants parties?”—but, actually, we would not have democracy in most cases without it being channelled through political parties, so they are an obvious target for any malefactor who wants to get at our democracy. It is really unsatisfactory not to give further support to political parties. Perhaps between now and Report we could reflect more on that.
On CRMs, the noble Lord, Lord Russell, prompted me to look at the website of the company Beacon—it is out there, so I am not giving away any secrets. It claims that 1,500 charities, NGOs and other organisations were affected. One was the English National Ballet, which I got a notification from. It manages an awful lot of personal data that has been subject to a cyber security incident. That happened in July, and I tabled this amendment in July, so I would welcome something from the Minister and her team to get a little more of a steer about where an organisation such as that stands in relation to this Bill and whether it should be encompassed to some extent within it.
From this company’s website, you would not know that anything had happened. Maybe that is par for the course. It lists all these security credentials and so on, saying how wonderful it is—I am sure it is, and I do not wish to impugn it—but the fact is that it has had a major cyber security incident affecting apparently maybe 1,500 organisations and the personal data of millions and millions of people in this country. Yet I did not feel we got much back from the Minister, so perhaps we can think more about that between now and Report. I beg to leave to withdraw Amendment 79.
Baroness Kidron
“Digital Sovereignty Strategy (relevant network and information systems)(1) The Secretary of State must prepare and maintain a Digital Sovereignty Strategy (“the Strategy”) in relation to relevant network and information systems.(2) The Strategy must—(a) set out the Government’s assessment of the risks to relevant network and information systems arising from or related to—(i) dependence on hardware, software, or digital products and services that may be subject to foreign influence or interference,(ii) extra-territorial legal requirements that may be imposed on non-domiciled suppliers,(iii) vulnerabilities, undue control, or supply-chain dependency on foreign states or entities,(iv) inadvertent or deliberate extraction or training on UK datasets without licence or permission, and(v) foreign actors’ access to UK sovereign data assets and data held in trust on behalf of the public including, but not limited to, the National Health Service, the British Broadcasting Corporation, the Meteorological Office, security and surveillance assets, defence assets, education assets, and assets from museums and other cultural institutions;(b) set out the technological developments, market concentration, or strategic dependencies that may affect the security or resilience of relevant network and information systems in the UK;(c) set out the Government’s approach to mitigating the risks identified under paragraph (b); (d) include an assessment of—(i) the role of open source software, open standards, and open architectures in strengthening the resilience, transparency, and security of relevant network and information systems,(ii) the security and maintenance needs of open source software components used, or proposed to be used, in relevant network and information systems,(iii) the skills, capabilities, and capacity of UK-based developers, maintainers, and technical experts required to support the use of open source components in relevant network and information systems,(iv) options to increase the use of open source components and to diversify open source suppliers, reduce strategic dependencies, and enhance domestic capability in key technologies used in relevant network and information systems,(v) options for international collaboration in the production of open source components used in relevant network and information systems,(vi) options to prioritise procurement from UK-based businesses, services and suppliers used in relevant network and information systems,(vii) capital markets and pension funds holding capital in UK-based relevant network and information systems, and(viii) any legislative, regulatory, procurement, or policy measures the Government considers necessary to support digital sovereignty through open source components and reduce systemic risk in relation to relevant network and information systems.(3) The Secretary of State must, within the Strategy, set out a Digital Sovereignty Dashboard used to measure the technological sovereignty of the UK in relation to relevant network and information systems, including relating to—(a) infrastructure, including infrastructure concentration,(b) data-jurisdiction exposure,(c) value of information and cultural assets of the United Kingdom, and(d) dependency on foreign states.(4) In preparing the Digital Sovereignty Dashboard, the Secretary of State must consult—(a) the Office for National Statistics,(b) the Competition and Markets Authority,(c) the National Cyber Security Centre,(d) the AI Security Institute, and(e) any other persons the Secretary of State deems relevant.(5) The Secretary of State must publish the Strategy and any revisions to it, subject to the redaction of information the publication of which would be reasonably likely to prejudice national security.(6) The Strategy must be reviewed at least once in every three-year period but may be updated whenever the Secretary of State considers that significant new risks have arisen.(7) In this section—“Digital sovereignty” means the ability of the United Kingdom to maintain secure, resilient, and reliable access to and control over the hardware, software, data, and digital services on which relevant network and information systems depend;“open source” has the meaning given to it in the definition published by the Open Source Initiative;“relevant network and information system” means a network and information system belonging to—(a) an operator of an essential service, (b) a relevant digital service provider,(c) a relevant managed service provider, or(d) a critical supplier,within the meaning of the NIS Regulations.”Member’s explanatory statement
This new clause would require the Secretary of State to prepare, maintain, and lay before Parliament a Digital Sovereignty and Resilience Strategy addressing risks to relevant network and information systems from foreign ownership, interference, and technological dependence. The Strategy would include a Digital Sovereignty Dashboard, which would provide evidence on UK procurement, innovation and resilience and keep an up-to-date understanding of emerging risk.
Baroness Kidron (CB)
My Lords, Amendment 83, in my name and those of the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, and the noble Lords, Lord Holmes and Lord Tarassenko, would require the Secretary of State to publish and maintain a digital sovereignty strategy. Before the Recess, many of us participated in a debate on digital sovereignty, and the level of agreement across the Chamber was absolutely overwhelming about the importance of UK national sovereignty and the current threats to it from our current arrangements with the tech sector, particularly US-based behemoths. The same sentiment is articulated by Amendment 166 in the name of noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, and it is a sentiment shared in the other place, where Conservatives, Liberal Democrats and Greens all tabled similar Motions.
During the debate, I identified four areas in which the UK has surrendered its leverage to make its own decisions. We surrendered our political leverage by deferring to the power of US tech; we surrendered our economic leverage by placing UK businesses at a structural disadvantage and entering into expansive and extractive contracts; we surrendered our technological capability as we failed to invest in UK capacity and businesses; and we ensured our strategic vulnerability by depending on foreign companies for key infrastructure. Together, these weaken our economy, our security, our safety and, above all, our autonomy: the ability to choose. I doubt that any single government strategy put us in this position, but it reveals a lack of strategy that we find ourselves here.
Amendment 83 would set out a requirement for the Secretary of State to establish a digital sovereignty strategy. Proposed new subsection (2)(a) would require an assessment of the risks to networks and information systems from
“dependence on hardware, software, or digital products and services that may be subject to foreign influence or interference, extra-territorial legal requirements that may be imposed on non-domiciled suppliers”—
such as cloud providers through the US CLOUD Act—
“vulnerabilities, undue control, or supply-chain dependency on foreign states or entities”,
the use of
“UK datasets without license or permission”
and vulnerabilities to valuable data assets that belong to the British public, including those related to the NHS, BBC, and Met Office. The rest of proposed new subsection (2) sets out further requirements to assess the risk of
“technological developments, market concentration or strategic dependencies”
and give consideration to vital elements of sovereignty, including open source technology and assets, talent procurement, capital markets and international collaboration with mid-sized partners whom we retain leverage with.
Finally, proposed new subsections (3) and (4) call for the development of a dashboard enabling the measurement of digital sovereignty. I am working with computer scientists at the British Computing Society who are developing a prototype for this and I urge the Government to look at this work and consider developing it, for their own procurement purposes and to provide it as a tool for the wider business community.
I set that out in some detail because I rather suspect that, if we had a proper strategy across the nation, we would not have had the conversation that we just had in our debate on the previous grouping. Sovereignty is now firmly on the agenda. This is partly due to the export ban on Anthropic and Claude Fable 5 introduced by President Trump in June, but stories highlighting our sovereign vulnerability across the digital stack predate that event and have continued since.
Dependency is not built overnight. It is the result of a systemic and concerted effort by entrenched big tech companies across many years to make themselves indispensable to the UK state, businesses and society, and of successive UK Governments failing to invest in our businesses, communities and people and choosing always to buy oven-ready tech, irrespective of the economic, societal and individual costs.
Just as dependence is not built overnight, neither can sovereignty be reclaimed overnight; nor is it a zero-sum game in which every part of the stack can or should be replaced. None the less, to restore any independence at all, we require an equally systematic and concerted approach to build where we can, to buy only products and services that adhere to our laws, to recognise our unique skills and assets, and to work co-operatively with other like-minded countries. That begins with a strategy that establishes a clear route for government and is fed into experts, free from lobbying and scrutinised by Parliament—which is the very purpose of the amendment in front of us. I beg to move.
Baroness Ludford (LD)
My Lords, I shall speak to my Amendment 166. It offers an alternative route to the same destination, although the amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, is probably superior because it is fuller and more comprehensive; I readily concede that. Her amendment would add an important element—a digital sovereignty dashboard prepared by the Office for National Statistics, the Competition and Markets Authority, the National Cyber Security Centre and the AI Security Institute—so that we can measure whether anything is changing. The cross-party agreement on this matter, which the noble Baroness referenced, is important and might help persuade the Minister of the force of the argument.
The Competition and Markets Authority puts Amazon Web Services and Microsoft together at between 70% and 80% of the UK’s public cloud market. That is not only a duopoly but a digital sovereignty issue. In its report Rewiring the State, which was published in June, the Science, Innovation and Technology Committee in the other place found that major departments, including HMRC and the NHS, were locked into multiyear agreements that further entrench those dependencies. The National Audit Office has found no shared strategic approach across government towards the handful of very large suppliers that now dominate these markets and are, to a large extent, American. Research done by the British cloud provider Civo found that 83% of UK IT leaders believe that geopolitics threatens their ability to control their data, while only 35% know precisely where that data resides.
I have a history, as a Member of the European Parliament, of being involved in all the arguments about transatlantic data transfer and what happens to the data when it is in the US; this was all in the wake of the war on terror, Guantanamo and so on. We are back in that territory, I guess. It is not just about the economic side of non-national control; it is also about your vulnerability to decisions—including, sometimes, decisions that you do not like—about what happens to the data.
Lord Tarassenko (CB)
My Lords, I shall speak in support of Amendment 83 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, to which I have added my name. In my speech, I will focus just on the aspects of the digital sovereign strategy that are relevant to the NHS. I speak as someone who held an honorary contract with the Oxford University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust until November 2025, enabling me to be a co-investigator on research projects involving patient data.
Cyber attacks against NHS trusts and their supply chains occur with very high frequency, from regular automated phishing attempts, which are blocked daily, to major incidents causing significant clinical disruption. Health and social care consistently rank among the top sectors reported for cyber incidents and data breaches to the ICO. I am sure that we all remember the WannaCry cyber attack in May 2017, which affected 81 of our 236 NHS trusts at the time, causing nearly 20,000 appointments to be cancelled in a week.
Less than two years ago, in November 2024, there was a major cyber attack against the Wirral University Teaching Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, which compromised the trust’s electronic patient record. I know that EPR well as we have the same EPR in Oxford: Cerner Millennium. As a result of the cyber attack, staff in the Wirral hospitals lost all access to patient records, electronic prescribing tools and diagnostic results. All elective surgeries and outpatient appointments across the trust had to be cancelled, and members of the public were told not to use the emergency department at one of the hospitals in the trust. All clinical systems remained completely offline for nine days.
I mentioned the EPR Cerner Millennium. Cerner is now part of Oracle Health. Together, Oracle and Epic, both of which are US companies, account for about 40% of hospital EPR contracts in England and Wales. In primary care, EMIS software manages just under 60% of the patient records—the records of 35 to 40 million patients across England and Wales. EMIS was bought by Optum, part of the UnitedHealth Group, in 2023, but, in March this year, the UnitedHealth Group sold Optum to a US private equity firm, TPG, for just under £300 million. I will come back to that briefly later.
In 2023, NHS England and the Department of Health and Social Care launched a 2030 cyber security strategy. The noble Lord, Lord Markham, when he was a Health Minister, wrote the foreword—he will remember this, I am sure—to the strategy document. In it, he wrote—we all agree with him, I am sure—that
“the cyber security of our health and social care … underwrites patient safety”.
The group director for cyber security for the DHSC has recently written to all NHS trust boards informing them that, from this month, September 2026, new cyber policies will be included in the next data security and protection toolkit, covering issues such as multi-factor authentication, high-severity alerts and endpoint detection. There is nothing about AI, which is perhaps the subtitle of this Bill—something that will, I hope, have been removed by Report. Yet we know from Tuesday’s debate and last week’s open letter from 100 companies, including large tech firms, that AI-enabled cyber attacks are about to become more widespread and more sophisticated within months.
This prompts three questions. First, are officials from the Minister’s department, which has overall responsibility for cyber security, co-ordinating with the cyber security group in the DHSC—especially with respect to the latest threats from AI agents?
Secondly, have the recent reports from the AISI been communicated to the cyber security group in the DHSC, and have their implications for the NHS been discussed with them? I note here that the new Minister for Science and Innovation, Chris McDonald MP, is a Minister in both the DBIST and the DHSC, so I am hopeful that the answer to these two questions might be yes.
Thirdly, given the high prevalence of foreign ownership of companies, such as Epic and TPG, that are responsible for managing patient data within the NHS—notwithstanding the single-supplier agreement with Palantir, another US company, for the Federated Data Platform—has the Minister’s department assessed the risk to relevant network and information systems as a result of our technological dependence on these companies?
What I have described for the NHS also applies to other sovereign data assets such as those held by the BBC or the Met Office. If the full value to the UK of these sovereign data assets is to be realised as part of the Government’s growth strategy, we need to be optimally protected against cyber attacks, including AI-enabled attacks. For that to happen, we need a coherent digital sovereign strategy across government departments, led by the Minister’s department.
Lord Russell of Liverpool (CB)
My Lords, I echo the words of the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron: in the previous group, we probably would not have had anything like that debate if a clear strategy were indeed in place.
I will speak very briefly and in the context of other countries’ views of the safety and security of doing business with the UK and UK entities. Part of the backdrop is an attempt by His Majesty’s Government to try to do a reset with the EU, not least because of the problems we are having with our erstwhile colonial possessions across the Atlantic. We need to be viewed as a safe haven for the security of our business and data. If we look at what the EU, for all its bureaucratic idiosyncrasies, has been doing with NIS2, in many instances that is an extremely good model for us when looking comprehensively at the different sectors that need to be involved. NIS2 covers energy, transport, banking, financial market infrastructures, health, drinking water, wastewater, digital infrastructure, ISP services, public administration, space, postal services, waste management, chemicals, food, manufacturing, research and other critical parts of the economy. The EU is ahead of us and has done a great deal of groundwork; if we were to talk to the EU, we could benefit hugely without reinventing the wheel.
It is imperative not only that we give noble Lords and parliamentarians a feeling that we know what we are doing and where we are going but that other countries currently doing, or thinking of doing, business or more business with us have faith in the security of our data and cyber security infrastructure. If I were looking to invest in a company, that is an area I would look at very carefully—but, frankly, at the moment, I would not feel very confident.
Lord Birt (CB)
My Lords, these amendments are highly pertinent. We simply must ensure that non-UK providers of services in this sector are firmly and wholly within the scope of the Bill—they are only partly in scope. For noble Lords who were not at Second Reading, I read out a coruscating report by the American Government that damned Microsoft for its poor cyber security. I am sure that it is not true across the whole of Microsoft, but in that particular instance it manifestly was.
I observe that our previous debate was absolutely excellent; it uniformly focused on organisations in the UK that are providing services. There was a danger that somebody hearing that debate might think that all those organisations are themselves responsible for breaches. The data on whether breaches chiefly occur through failures in organisations mentions the absence of multifactor authentication or that they are caused by failures in the quality and design of the services that those organisations consume. By the way, the organisations consume literally hundreds and hundreds of services, and the reality is that it is a huge challenge for organisations to ensure that all the services that they buy are secure. We might say that it is a near impossibility. Again, it is absolutely vital that we keep providers firmly within the scope of the Bill—I am not saying that they are not there, but they are certainly not there in their totality—and, dare I say, firmly under regulation.
Baroness Berger (Lab)
My Lords, I support the principles behind these amendments. A point was raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, and I wish to make the point in a different way. Many reasons have been shared during this debate, which I share. The noble Baroness, Lady Ludford, referred to the questions asked by Chi Onwurah MP in the other place. It is interesting because I submitted a very similar Question just before the end of the summer in July. I asked:
“what proportion of the computing and cloud services used by government departments are provided by suppliers that are … headquartered outside the UK, or … subject to the jurisdiction of a government outside the UK”.
I asked that specifically in the wake of recent events and the debate we had in July.
The Answer came back on Tuesday. I accept that the Question asked by Chi Onwurah MP was specifically about AWS, but I was asking about all services hosted outside the UK. The Answer was:
“This information is not held centrally. Individual government departments are responsible for managing their own commercial arrangements for computing and cloud services and would need to confirm the proportion of services provided by suppliers headquartered outside the UK”.
The Government do not know how much they are collectively relying on other countries for our key government digital infrastructure. Our Government’s critical systems, public services and citizens’ data are increasingly reliant on foreign-hosted clouds and data centres. While the Answer refers to “commercial arrangements”, I think it is about much more than that. This is a question of our national security and resilience. I believe we urgently need a digital sovereignty strategy to ensure that we know the answers to these questions, that we can act on them and that we can prevent any future challenges happening to ensure that we are as resilient as we should be.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
My Lords, I will speak to this very strategic group of amendments. I use that word again because the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, made it quite clear from the outset that that is exactly what we lack: a clear national strategy. I pay tribute to her tenacity in tabling Amendment 83, following what I thought was an extremely useful debate on the last day before we went into recess. That is still very much top of mind at the moment, as the Minister can see from the contributions today. If we had another debate today, I do not think we would feel any greater assurance than we did on the day of that debate.
I also thank my noble friend Lady Ludford for having tabled Amendment 166, which is along very much the same lines. We have at the moment, particularly in the public sector—I thought the noble Baroness, Lady Berger, put this extremely well—near total and escalating digital dependence on foreign technology monopolies and foreign jurisdictions. It is quite prevalent in Whitehall. There is a kind of ignorance about the geopolitical reality that so much of what might be described as the digital stack is owned, operated and controlled from abroad. I will come on to our procurement policies shortly.
Amendment 83 defines the pillars of true digital sovereignty. It would tackle extreme market concentration. As we have heard, three American technology giants— Amazon, Google and Microsoft—control a staggering 73% of the cloud computing and enterprise hosting supporting our UK financial sector and public services. If an AWS region or Microsoft Azure network suffers a systemic failure, three-quarters of the City of London and vast swathes of government administration are instantly paralysed. Concentrating our critical national infrastructure into a handful of corporate choke points is the very antithesis of national resilience.
Secondly, it directly confronts foreign extraterritorial legal exposure. Because our critical public data is predominantly hosted on foreign cloud architectures, that data remains legally exposed to foreign statutory instruments, most notably the US CLOUD Act, and is subject to sudden unilateral geopolitical shifts. As my noble friend Lady Ludford said, we saw a chilling preview of this vulnerability only recently when the US Administration temporarily cut off European and UK financial institutions from accessing Anthropic’s AI model, Claude Mythos. Whatever the rights and wrongs of Mythos and its capabilities—we have a pretty good idea of what the wrongs were from what the AI Security Institute had to say—suppose that we had adopted this powerful model in a cyber defensive role; if an ally can pull the plug on front-line cyber security tools overnight, we do not possess true digital sovereignty. If a foreign ally can pull the plug on critical cutting-edge technology at a moment’s notice, we do not have true national resilience but a dangerous dependency.
My noble friend Lady Ludford’s Amendment 166 would force the Government to publish a formal digital sovereignty strategy within 12 months, assessing foreign reliance and reforming public procurement to prioritise secure home-grown UK technology. In fact, both amendments would tackle a glaring failure of current government procurement. The UK possesses world-leading academic institutions and an exceptional cyber security start-up ecosystem. But we suffer from a chronic scale-up failure. Time and again, major public contracts, such as the recent NHS and defence platforms, are automatically handed to dominant foreign tech giants such as Palantir, rather than nurturing and scaling home-grown British technology.
Proposed subsection (2)(c) of Amendment 83 and my noble friend Lady Ludford’s Amendment 166 would provide the solution. They would legally require the Government to use public procurement as a strategic lever to prioritise secure, interoperable and sovereign UK-developed technologies. That is how we build long-term sovereign capacity on our own soil, create high-wage tech jobs and prevent our best innovations being swallowed up by our international competitors.
In an era of contested supply chains, autonomous AI warfare and geopolitical instability, a nation that cannot secure its own digital foundation cannot truly govern itself. I very much hope that the Government will take heed of these amendments, even if they do not take them on board in this Bill. The former Secretary of State for DSIT is on the record as being very much in favour of digital sovereignty, and I hope that that carries through into the current Government.
Lord Reay (Con)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have added their names to the amendments and who have spoken in this debate. Both amendments in this group are underpinned by the same principle that national security and national technological capabilities deserve a unified plan—not one that targets some sectors and entities and not others, but a holistic plan that brings together all sectors and industries into a single framework. His Majesty’s Opposition therefore support the intention behind the amendments.
However, at risk of repetition, the Government could avoid the need for these propositions. They could do away with your Lordships’ worries if they would commit, as mentioned by my noble friend Lord Camrose, to publishing a national cyber action plan within a set timeframe, and commit to including national digital sovereignty as part of that plan. In light of Tuesday’s debate on AI, we request a review and update of the previous Government’s AI White Paper to ensure that AI regulation and cyber regulation are aligned. They need to operate in lockstep, and this Bill is an appropriate place to do it. It is evident that national sovereignty and a reduced reliance on foreign technology is vital to ensuring national wholesale cyber security. I commend these amendments in their aims to achieve that, and I look forward to the Minister’s reply.
Baroness Lloyd of Effra (Lab)
I thank noble Lords for continuing the debate with which we ended the previous session: the very important topic of the technological and digital sovereignty of the UK. That is very important to this Government and we are taking action on it. It possibly has not been focused on enough in past years but, across many areas, that is what we are doing.
We are clear that we need a coherent approach and a clear direction. We obviously need to take into account that technologies and markets evolve, and the core of that approach was set out in the modern industrial strategy and the Digital and Technologies Sector Plan. That set out the direction of travel, and the Government will continue to consider how our priorities are best articulated.
Our objective, as I articulated at the end of July, is not complete independence but strategic resilience through a combination of domestic capability, diversified international partnership and targeted management of critical dependencies. This allows us to access the best of global markets while capitalising on our domestic capabilities. That is why we already have in place a range of regulatory and non-regulatory frameworks that enable us to embed those objectives through existing industrial, technological and resilience strategies. I will talk to some of those now.
For essential services in scope of the network and information systems regime, such as drinking water, health and energy, all entities are required to manage and mitigate the risks posed to their systems that deliver essential services. This includes the risks set out in the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Ludford.
On market concentration, which the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, and the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, referred to, the CMA is acting. It concluded an investigation into the cloud services market in July last year, highlighting competition issues arising from market concentration. It has since announced packages of actions to improve competition in cloud services. This work has directly informed our thinking, as we develop a more strategic approach to how the public sector procures cloud services.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
My Lords, I point out to the Minister that not all is rosy in that particular cloud services garden. The CMA failed to designate those major US hyperscalers as having strategic market status, which, for many of us, was a rather extraordinary outcome.
Baroness Lloyd of Effra (Lab)
It has announced a series of measures, including actions from Microsoft and Amazon, to support greater choice for UK businesses and the public sector.
On my noble friend Lady Berger’s question, it is true that cloud spend is distributed across departments and managed through a range of departmental contracts and commercial arrangements. We have established a cross-government cloud consumption dashboard to improve the visibility of cloud usage across the public sector, and we are working with both suppliers and departments to further improve the quality and completeness of our cloud infrastructure spend data to provide a joined-up view today and for the future. That is something that the Government are acting on.
Baroness Berger (Lab)
For clarification, that is on the spend, but my question is specifically about where the cloud services are hosted and/or whether they are under the jurisdictions of Governments beyond the UK. It was not just about what money is being spent; it was about who is responsible for it and where it is located.
Baroness Lloyd of Effra (Lab)
That is well noted.
For all digital services, as many noble Lords have pointed out, government departments are required to carry out robust security and resilience assessments in their procurement to ensure that the actions of foreign states or hostile actors cannot disrupt the delivery of public services. In June, the Cabinet Office published procurement policy note 025, Protecting the UK’s National Security through Public Procurement, and AI will be one of four key sectors recognised as critical for national security, with new guidance for departments prioritising contracts for British business where necessary to protect our national security.
Lord Birt (CB)
Before the Minister sits down, I ask her to reflect, at the end of our second day in Committee, that the noble Viscount, Lord Camrose, has mentioned more than once that he would like to see a national cyber security strategy, but is not the takeaway from these two days that we are all very clear on the challenges facing the UK? There is a great deal of uniformity across the Room, as well as in the quality of the Minister’s answers, but does the Bill not need to deal with all the issues that have surfaced and been addressed? Frankly, it does not do that at the moment. If the Bill passes in its less ambitious form, how long will it be before we get another Bill to address the strategies? If we have to wait that long, how much more damage is going to be done to our economy and our society in the meantime?
Baroness Lloyd of Effra (Lab)
Going back to the point made by the noble Lord in an earlier intervention, the Bill is a substantive Bill that substantially increases coverage of the digital infrastructure on which much of our economy relies. That is a very important point. As I mentioned at the start of my remarks just now, the question of whether the Bill is the right place to articulate the breadth of many of the issues that have been raised is, indeed, a good one. I am not sure that it is the right place to articulate all the very good questions that have been asked, because some are much more wide-ranging than the scope of the Bill.
Baroness Kidron (CB)
My Lords, I thank all who have spoken for their excellent contributions. I will make three quick points. First, in the course of the afternoon, I opened the Explanatory Notes, which is always a bit of a danger. I just want to put on the record that paragraph 2 states:
“These reforms are intended to better protect the services and other activities that are essential to the day-to-day functioning of society in the UK, and the economy, through safeguarding relevant network and information systems (the systems that allow computers and other devices to communicate with each other) and their surrounding environment”.
I do not think that the Bill, as it stands, does that job, and the last two groups have absolutely illustrated that.
The second thing that I would like to say to the Minister, and I absolutely recognise all the things that she mentioned, is that I did find myself counting, and it was 11. We do not have a strategy. It is 11, but it does not cover the scope of what we are discussing; it does not even cover the scope of security.
The third thing, which I am slightly loath to say but will now say, because otherwise we will get nowhere, is that I have been in the room with Ministers when they have indicated directly that they cannot do something because of America’s desire—absolutely categorically, yeah? That is the bit that we did not get from the Minister. Sovereignty is about being able to impose and choose our laws, and to decide what we can and cannot do and what we are willing to risk and give up for it.
I am not saying that it is easy, but I think everybody in the Committee has been completely reasonable in saying that we are not trying to replace the stack; we are trying to talk about chokeholds and we are trying to be strategic. What we are really trying to do is make the country safe and secure and, dare I say, make it respond to its own laws. I do not think that anything that the Minister said has dealt with that fact. It was not asking for much to actually have a think about what strategy is and have a look at how we might get to a better place. Let us have a vision of where we want to go and work out how to get there. Individual things and departments and leaving things out is not the answer.
This is an easy amendment for the Government to say yes to and I hope that, by Report, they will. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
House of Lords
Introduction: Baroness Mackenzie of Sherwood
Introduction: Lord Sarwar
Opt-out Collective Court Actions and Connected Litigation Funding
(1 day, 7 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Carlile of Berriew
To ask His Majesty’s Government what plans they have to reverse the effect on opt-out collective court actions and connected litigation funding resulting from the Supreme Court decision in R (on the application of PACCAR Inc and others) v Competition Appeal Tribunal and others; and, if so, when it is intended that the necessary legislation will come into force.
Lord Carlile of Berriew (CB)
My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper and I declare the interest of having some professional involvement in collective actions.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Justice (Lord Lemos) (Lab)
The Government recognise the critical role litigation funding plays in supporting access to justice and the need for such arrangements to be fair, transparent and commercially viable for funders. To support these aims, the Government have accepted the Civil Justice Council’s two key recommendations. First, we will legislate to mitigate the effects of the PACCAR judgment. Secondly, we will introduce proportionate regulation of litigation funding agreements. We will implement these changes when parliamentary time allows.
Lord Carlile of Berriew (CB)
I am grateful to the noble Lord for his reply. He is aware, and the House will be aware, that collective actions give consumers the power to pursue legal actions for which they cannot obtain legal aid, however egregious the wrongs that have been committed against them. Why is it that the Government have broken a promise made before the last election, in 2024, that a Bill of about two or three pages would be produced to reverse the unintended effects of the PACCAR case, so that such actions can be brought and the legal funding industry, which is making a great contribution to the British legal world, can proceed with such cases?
Lord Lemos (Lab)
We are committed to legislating. I hear the noble Lord’s concern about that, but I want to reassure the House that we are committed to legislating when parliamentary time allows. We are working urgently to identify a new legislative vehicle to take this forward. Legislation will clarify that litigation funding agreements are not damages-based agreements, and this will mitigate the effects of the PACCAR judgment.
Lord Arbuthnot of Edrom (Con)
Does the Minister accept that without litigation funding, Alan Bates would never have been able to bring his fantastic legal action against the Post Office, and does he recognise that this is an urgent matter?
Lord Lemos (Lab)
I do recognise that, and I know the history of Sir Alan Bates’ involvement in this. Sir Alan Bates has spoken openly about how, without a litigation funding agreement, he and the sub-postmasters would not have had their day in court. We agree with Sir Alan that third-party funding is crucial for enabling ordinary people to access justice. The access to justice point is the centre of why we think this is important, and I know that is what noble Lords feel too. With group and consumer claims, third-party funding under a litigation funding agreement is often the only option people have to bring a claim. I note the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, about access to legal aid as well. I want to reassure the noble Lord, Lord Arbuthnot, that we understand the importance of it in relation to the sub-postmasters and to Sir Alan Bates.
Baroness Brinton (LD)
My Lords, the Minister for Justice, Sarah Sackman, said in her Written Statement in December last year that legislation would be an absolute priority, and she quoted Sir Alan Bates earlier in the Statement. It is vital that any regulation ensures that claimants and victims, especially of the Post Office Horizon scandal, are given full information before they make decisions about whether it is worth continuing with the scheme. Can the Minister say whether there will be such help for claimants and victims?
Lord Lemos (Lab)
That is why we think light-touch regulation is important here. Transparency is important for consumers in these situations. I see the noble Baroness smile. I know the phrase “light touch” receives a hollow laugh—I used to be a financial services regulator myself. The Government do feel that there is a need to get this on to a proper regulatory footing. I can say a lot more about this; I promise not to be boring. I suspect a lot of the questions I am going to be asked are about urgency and getting on with it. As well as what I have said about finding the appropriate legislative vehicle, I will go back to Minister Sackman to have a discussion about this. As the noble Baroness knows, I have had rather a busy week. It is above my pay grade to give a commitment, but I will press the case. If I get anywhere, I will buy the noble Lord, Lord Carlile, a cup of tea, and if he likes the answer, he can buy me a glass of champagne.
Lord Keen of Elie (Con)
My Lords everyone agrees that the Supreme Court decision in PACCAR should be reversed by legislation. Until it is, satellite litigation will proliferate. The last Conservative Government introduced the Litigation Funding Agreements (Enforceability) Bill in 2024, so the necessary legislation is ready and waiting. The Starmer Government were notorious for doing nothing very slowly. I ask the Minister: will the present Government deal with one simple and uncontroversial matter very quickly and thus avoid the bottomless quicksands of parliamentary time?
Lord Lemos (Lab)
Bottomless quicksands are best avoided. I know the history of all this and the legislation the previous Government proposed. As I have made clear, we will legislate. The noble and learned Lord knows I cannot give him a date, but I will do my best to move this forward with Minister Sackman.
Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)
May I ask the Minister: does he know what is holding this up?
Lord Lemos (Lab)
Yes, I do. I can tell the noble and learned Baroness what is holding this up: it is people like me and other Ministers competing for legislative time. I am sorry to say I am going to be arguing with myself, but I promise to take noble Lords’ side on this. I understand the issues about access to justice. I take them very seriously and I will do my best.
Lord Hamilton of Epsom (Con)
The Minister has made it quite clear that he wants to see this on the statute book. Is it being blocked by the Treasury?
Lord Lemos (Lab)
No, it is not being blocked by the Treasury. Sorry, I must not be too bold and assertive—I appreciate that that is not my role. But no, it is not blocked by the Treasury. The Treasury has no say in this. We are looking for an appropriate legislative vehicle. The noble Lord, Lord Wilson, told me last night at dinner that it is more fun if I am rambunctious at the Dispatch Box.
Lord Watts (Lab)
My Lords, does not everyone have their own favourite piece of legislation that they want introduced, and as quickly as possible? It is for the Government to set the agenda, and once they have promised to do something, they will do it within the timeframe of that Government. As far as the Starmer argument goes, we had very little legislation coming from the Opposition when they were in government, and the legislation we did have did a lot of damage to the country.
Lord Lemos (Lab)
I almost always agree with my noble friend, but on this occasion, I would suggest a tentative correction. Actually, the previous Government did put forward legislation, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Keen, mentioned. But we are committed to doing that, and as my noble friend says, there are some competitive pressures. I know something about competition for legislation. I know a lot less about competition law, but I am learning fast.
Office for Students: Academic Misconduct Allegations
(1 day, 7 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Young of Acton
To ask His Majesty’s Government whether they will consider giving the Office for Students power to investigate serious allegations of academic misconduct where a university has declined to commission an independent inquiry.
Lord Young of Acton (Con)
In begging leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper, I declare an interest as the director of the Free Speech Union.
The Minister of State, Department for Education and Department for Work and Pensions (Baroness Smith of Malvern) (Lab)
My Lords, our world-class higher education system is built on the principle of institutional autonomy. As autonomous institutions, universities are responsible for setting and maintaining the academic standards of the qualifications that they award. The Office for Students regulates these standards through its regulatory framework. When providers fall below minimum requirements, it already has the power to investigate and take regulatory action.
Lord Young of Acton (Con)
I am grateful for that reply. Does the Minister accept that the Jason Arday case, where serious allegations of academic misconduct were initially dismissed by Cambridge as a “vile smear”, with an investigation launched only after months of damaging public scrutiny, illustrates why the Office for Students needs this power? Will the Government commit to consulting about it?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
I have already identified that the Office for Students has that power already. The death of Jason Arday is of course a tragedy. I am sure that, for many people, our heartfelt condolences are with his family and friends and everybody who cared about him. Cambridge is rightly establishing an independent investigation. I had the opportunity yesterday, along with the Secretary of State, to talk to the vice-chancellor and senior leaders of Cambridge University about that, and they will be imminently announcing the detail of the terms of reference for that investigation. Importantly, they gave assurances to me and the Secretary of State that it would be independent and rigorous.
Baroness Gohir (CB)
My Lords, one area of academic misconduct that does not get addressed is the exploitation of junior academics, particularly women and minority-ethnic academics, by older academics who sometimes force their names on to papers to which they have not contributed, use the work of junior academics to secure millions of pounds of research funding and then discard them from projects. Sometimes there are tribunals, settlements and NDAs, but there is no accountability and the cycle continues. What are the Government doing, and what can the Office for Students do, to address this?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
That would clearly be an unsatisfactory position for any junior academic involved in that situation. It is slightly less a job for government and slightly more for the leadership of universities, which, as I have said, are autonomous institutions that are rightly responsible for maintaining their academic standards. I am sure that they and others will have heard the concerns that the noble Baroness has expressed today.
Lord Mohammed of Tinsley (LD)
My Lords, I also pay tribute to Jason Arday. In the Minister’s response to the noble Lord, Lord Young, she talked about the Office for Students having the powers already, but is she willing to carry out a review to ensure that it has sufficient powers and, if possible, look at the possibilities of beefing up its powers if she found that it needed more?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
We always keep the powers of the Office for Students under review. I am sure that it, like others, will want to look carefully at any recommendations that come out of the independent inquiry that Cambridge University has instituted. Universities UK may also want to think about the way in which any lessons learned from this episode can be reflected across the whole sector, and we will obviously want to work with it on that as well.
Baroness Warwick of Undercliffe (Lab)
My Lords, this is a serious and difficult case that clearly raises legitimate questions, but surely we should await the outcome of the various inquiries under way before passing judgment. Universities, as the Minister said, are already subject to a range of checks and balances, and indeed Cambridge has already started its review process. I suggest that the most responsible course of action at this stage is to let the investigations establish the facts, look carefully at what they tell us about the robustness of the existing checks and then consider whether any regulatory or other intervention is necessary.
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
I agree with my noble friend. Much has been said about this issue, not all of it, I suspect, either helpful or correct. It is important that we allow a relatively speedy—I hope—and independent investigation into the issues raised by this very sad case, which may well relate to the processes for the recruitment of academics, the levels of academic and research standards and the processes in place, both within individual institutions and across the sector, for ensuring that in our higher education system those are maintained at the very highest levels. I am sure it will be helpful to wait for the results of these inquiries and any recommendations that are made in order for all of us to be able to review what further action might be necessary.
Baroness Fox of Buckley (Non-Afl)
My Lords, on Tuesday we heard some moving and powerful speeches about breaking through the defensive institutional cover-ups of wrongdoing when we discussed the Hillsborough law. Even honest mistakes can be made toxic by a lack of accountability. Can the Minister assure us that universities are also held to these high standards of candour, that their autonomy cannot be used as an excuse for marking one’s own homework, as in the instance of what Cambridge proposes, and that she takes seriously the fact that academics, whistleblowers and journalists were threatened and smeared for simply doing their job? Does she accept that academic freedom and academic standards are threatened if nothing is done, and can she assure us that she will keep her eye on this? What has happened here is very serious.
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
As I think I have already made clear, both I and the Secretary of State have been doing more than just keeping our eye on this. It was important for us yesterday, in our meeting with the vice-chancellor, to have the assurance that she was able to give us that the detail of the reviews would be imminently announced, that the reviews would be carried out independently and that recommendations that came from them would be made available for all of us to consider whether any further action is necessary.
Baroness Cash (Con)
My Lords, the department at the centre of this summer’s tragic events is not any university faculty. It trains teachers with public money under DfE accreditation. Parents and schools are entitled to know that those who train our teachers meet the standards that we demand of the teachers themselves. Will the Minister confirm which regulator—the Office for Students, Ofsted or her own department—is responsible and accountable for the integrity of academic qualifications in accredited teacher training providers? Will she accept that nobody in England currently has the power to investigate across institutions? If she agrees with that, will she say which body should do it?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
First, to reiterate what I said, it is right that institutions themselves are responsible for maintaining academic standards. It is a fundamental part of the reason for the success of our higher education system that they continue to maintain high academic standards. The noble Baroness raises an important point about regulation with respect to teacher training, where I think there is a role for Ofsted, but I will come back to her with more detail.
With regard to the university itself, as I have made clear, the Office for Students already has the ability to regulate with respect to academic standards and processes that might be undermining them. She makes an important point, which I touched on earlier, about the extent to which the system itself, rather than simply individual institutions, maintains the quality of academic standards. That is something that we and Universities UK will want to look at in more detail.
Baroness Goldie (Con)
My Lords, the Minister—inadvertently, I am sure—creates an impression of if not complacency then certainly inertia. I emphasise that I am sure it is inadvertent. What many of us find surprising is the question of what would be necessary to allow the Office for Students to launch an investigation, rather than a general periphery discussion going on among institutions. Surely that office should have the power to take dynamic action.
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
It is unlike the noble Baroness to make the charge that she has just made to me, and, frankly, I think it is unfair. I have been pretty clear that, in talking to Cambridge University, we have been assured and are clear that there will be an independent investigation into the particular circumstances here. I have also been clear, in response to the question from the noble Lord, Lord Mohammed of Tinsley, that when we know what the conclusions of that review are, there may well be further action that we want to take. If the noble Baroness wants me to take knee-jerk action on the basis of news headlines, I am afraid that is not something I am willing to do.
Voter Registration, Election Turnout and Compulsory Voting
(1 day, 7 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Rennard
To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of (1) the means whereby Australia has achieved far greater voter registration and general election turnout levels than the UK, and (2) compulsory voting and automatic voter registration schemes in the UK.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (Baroness Taylor of Stevenage) (Lab)
My Lords, we have examined the electoral system in Australia, where they have introduced more automated forms of voter registration. Their experience highlights just how much time, iteration and rigorous testing are required to build processes and data sources of sufficient quality. Over the coming years, we are working to create a new automated voter registration system, thereby removing a key barrier to eligible citizens participating in our democracy. It is likely that Australia’s long-established policy of compulsory voting, automated forms of registration and public engagement in democratic participation may have contributed to the higher levels of turnout at its elections. Different democracies make different choices about how they encourage electoral participation.
Lord Rennard (LD)
My Lords, the turnout level in Australia’s most recent general election was 91%, compared to only 60% in the UK, and Australia has achieved voter registration levels of 98%, compared to just 86% in the UK. The Government’s impact assessment suggests that the moves towards automatic voter registration will increase voter registration rates by less than 0.8% in two years—perhaps in time for the next election. Do the Government accept that low turnouts and there being perhaps 8 million people missing from our electoral registers severely weaken the health of our democracy? What more will they do to address these issues?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I stress to the noble Lord that I said it has taken a long time for Australia to get where it has. It started off with compulsory voting in 1924. The 1922 election saw a less than 60% turnout. That has risen, as he said, to 91% in the 2025 election, but that is a result of a number of steps it has taken, including the registration steps that we are looking at now. It is an iterative process and we need to move ahead with it carefully. We make different choices in different countries about the way we move this forward. At the moment, the Government believe that we have to focus on taking down barriers to participation. That is why we are taking steps in the Representation of the People Bill, which we will be debating shortly, to make voting easier and more accessible before we go forward with any further steps.
Lord Brennan of Canton (Lab)
My Lords, to some, compulsory voting might seem a rather illiberal proposal. Have the Government considered incentivised voting instead, perhaps in the form of a National Lottery draw for all voters on the occasion of each general election, with the winning prize going to one of the voters—or, if they object, it could be donated to charity instead?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I am all for innovation in election processes, but that might cause some problems among members of our community who do not like to take part in gambling. However, we have been doing some voter piloting. The key thing here is to tackle the barriers to people getting involved in the democratic process. We know what they are. The Electoral Commission did a review very recently on this, and people were very clear that it is lack of information about parties and candidates, negative perception of the voting system and that voting is too complicated. Anyone who has been on the doorstep trying to persuade someone to go out to vote will realise the misconception about how voting works. We have to tackle those barriers before we start thinking about the more exciting innovation that my noble friend speaks about.
Lord Robathan (Con)
My Lords, is this not a question of letting people choose whether they wish to vote or register to vote? This seems an easy thing. I hate to agree with the Government on this, but taking caution is a very sensible thing to do.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I did not expect to get that support, but I am very grateful for it. The Government support the use of pilots to test and evaluate electoral reforms—which is exactly what we have been doing through this process—where there is a clear case for doing so, but we do not have any plans for piloting compulsory voting at this time. We want to remove those barriers to participation, make it easier for eligible electors to register and vote, and make sure that we encourage the 7 or 8 million voters who could vote but who are currently not registered to get on the register.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, the Minister very kindly gave me a Written Answer saying that Government have no current plans to introduce compulsory voting. However, since an amendment will be proposed by my noble friends Lady Royall, Lord Kinnock and Lord Blunkett, and me to the Representation of the People Bill, will she talk with her colleagues in government and see if this is an opportunity to consider compulsory voting, since there are no rational arguments against it?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I very much look forward to debating this when we start the Representation of the People Bill on 14 September. I am sure there will be lively discussions about all matters to do with elections. Of course, I am always happy to debate things that are already in the Bill or things that people want to have in the Bill as we go through that process.
Baroness O'Neill of Bexley (Con)
My Lords, the Representation of the People Bill proposes automatic voter registration, which will obviously involve new computers and new data systems. Can the Minister clarify how much this is expected to cost?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
We want to make sure that the system is adequate to deal with all voter registration. We are assured by the Electoral Commission and the electoral administration authorities that we have sufficient processes in place, because the system is set up to register all voters who are eligible to vote. What we need to do is encourage them to do so and make sure they are on those systems.
Lord Storey (LD)
My Lords, if 16 year-olds are able to vote in future, at the first election after their 16th birthday, how will they all be registered to do so? Do not local authorities face a problem with non-registration, whereby it enables some people to claim single person discount on their council tax?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
In terms of voting at 16, the Government intend the franchise change to be in place in good time ahead of the next general election. We were elected on a clear mandate, which included extending that right to vote to 16 and 17 year-olds, and that will be a major change to the electoral franchise. We need to get it right. It is not just the change to the electoral law but making sure we have the democratic and civic education process in place, and I know that my noble friend the Minister for Education is working on that as we speak. We are putting all that in place before we get to the stage where 16 and 17 year-olds will be asked to cast their vote.
On the issue of single person council tax discount, that is a matter for people’s declarations. They make a declaration to their local authority which is renewed regularly when they renew their council tax bill. They have to say consistently that they still wish to claim that single person council tax discount.
Lord Hayward (Con)
My Lords, the Minister may have been somewhat disconcerted by receiving support from my noble friend Lord Robathan. She will be even more disconcerted that she is receiving support from me as well on compulsory voting and compulsory registration. Can she confirm that she has looked carefully at the way Northern Ireland provides access to everybody to check the register? Would that not provide the opportunity for good online voter registration without the cost to which my noble friend on the Front Bench referred?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
We worked very closely with the devolved Administrations as we went through this process. There were a number of pilots in Wales, for example, and we are working with our Welsh colleagues to explore what they learned from their experience. We are looking very carefully at open registers because, as we explore and adopt those more automated approaches, we want to remove the presumption that citizens will be added to an open register unless they opt out. I think it will work the other way round, in effect, once we have automated voter registration. All those issues are being explored very carefully, and we are very much looking at the experience in our devolved Administrations to learn what we can with them and from them.
The Lord Bishop of Leicester
My Lords, democracy is of course about a lot more than simply voter participation. What are the Government currently doing to enable civic participation at this time, particularly by minoritised groups, which will aid in safeguarding our democracy?
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I am grateful to the right reverend Prelate, because he enables me to answer in a better way the question that the noble Baroness, Lady Nicholson, asked me yesterday about how we are involving and engaging people in the democratic process. Electors’ attitudes and motivations are arguably more important than process issues in stopping them registering and voting, as I am sure the right reverend Prelate will be aware. The Electoral Commission, as I said, explored the reasons for that. Backed by a total of £2.5 million, the democratic engagement fund will provide grants of £1,000 to £50,000, with most awards expected to be around £25,000. We expect projects on that democratic engagement to be completed by January 2028, and we will be exploring many different ways of having better democratic engagement, particularly across groups that are less inclined to vote.
Summer Drought: Future Supply Disruption
(1 day, 7 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord John of Southwark
To ask His Majesty’s Government what lessons they have learned from this summer’s drought; and what plans they have to ensure that water companies minimise future supply disruption.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Baroness Hayman of Ullock) (Lab)
My Lords, this year’s drought follows exceptionally dry weather, record-breaking heatwaves and sustained high demand for water. Climate change presents increased risk of more frequent dry summers, and we take drought preparedness very seriously. In response, we have increased engagement with the water sector and key stakeholders, including through hosting more frequent National Drought Group meetings. Our response to the Environment and Climate Change Committee’s drought preparedness inquiry also demonstrates our commitment to improving drought preparedness for the country.
Lord John of Southwark (Lab)
I thank my noble friend for her Answer. She referred to this summer’s drought, but that followed a particularly wet winter, with southern England seeing 58% more rain than usual. Despite that, most regions have still faced hosepipe bans and other significant restrictions this summer. It is clear that we have insufficient reservoir capacity. What can the Government and water companies do to ensure that we build the necessary additional reservoir capacity now and not at some point in the distant future?
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
I am sure noble Lords are aware that the Government have pledged to build nine new large reservoirs to ensure sufficient water supply for the future. At the same time, we need to protect and enhance the environment and we are looking at how best to do that. We changed some of the planning rules to enable this to happen more quickly. At the moment, we are looking at how we co-ordinate the delivery programme. We have the Water Delivery Taskforce, which is bringing together officials from Defra, the Environment Agency, Natural England and other government departments as necessary to make sure that we have a good, co-ordinated delivery plan. The current timelines are that the reservoirs would come into service from 2035 and in 2031 Havant Thicket would become the first large water supply reservoir completed in 30 years.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, I welcome the response to the Environment and Climate Change Committee’s Surviving Drought report to which the Minister referred, but she will be aware of the impact on farming, the horticultural sector and the fruit and vegetable sector that this year’s drought has caused. There is a very strong case for small on-farm reservoirs, and this needs to be dealt with urgently. We cannot wait another 10 years for these major reservoirs, for which there is a need, to be built. Please will she authorise her department to proceed with these small, much-needed on-farm reservoirs?
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
I have said previously to noble Lords that enabling farmers to hold more water and manage water better on their land is something that the Government are very keen to see and enable. We are also very aware of the huge problems that drought causes farming. We have been looking at how we can support farmers facing lower crop yields, for example. There are also increased feed costs and irrigation issues. I have held meetings with the poultry sector, for example, specifically on the problems of heat stress on poultry. It is something we are very keen to resolve because this will be a long-term problem.
Baroness Grender (LD)
My Lords, does the Minister think it sends the right signal that failing water companies which are currently losing 3 billion litres a day in leakage can find £75 million for an ad campaign to tell households to use less water, while government support for farmers hit by this summer’s drought was £65 million? Can she tell us whether that farmer support package will be in any way increased?
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
We are currently working with farmers to look at what support they need, not just in this area but in other areas because farmers are under pressure in many different areas. I agree with the noble Baroness about the issues around the water companies, which is why I hope to be bringing the new water Bill to this House shortly.
Baroness Butler-Sloss (CB)
Can I suggest to the Minister that in addition to what has been suggested there should be a campaign to encourage people who have any sort of land to start saving water on it? For instance, I am thinking of whether I can put down a borehole—I have only 16 acres. Things such as that might be helpful if the Government could push people to see what they could do to save water themselves.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
One important thing we need to be doing is not necessarily asking people to drop boreholes on their land but water saving more broadly. It is something we could definitely improve on as a country. The Government are keen for water companies to look at how they encourage more water saving across all their customers.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
My Lords, in the past few weeks the Prime Minister has been talking about public control of water companies. What we have had since privatisation has been a disaster. Yesterday he actually mentioned public ownership. Does that mean renationalisation in other words? By the way, Havant Thicket is a disaster and I would be very happy to meet the Minister to explain exactly why and bring some campaigners as well. I save water in water butts.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
I would be very happy to meet the noble Baroness. She may be better off meeting the Water Minister, to be honest, but I am always happy to meet her. She raises important points, but we have to get this right. On public ownership, my understanding is that that same report stressed that public ownership was not the same as nationalisation. I need to understand better what the different options are.
Lord Roborough (Con)
My Lords, it is obvious that we need more investment in reservoirs but the easier, cheaper and quicker improvement is to restore natural water storage through rewetting, riparian tree planting, de-canalising rivers and, as my noble friend mentioned, creating on-farm water storage. What are the Government doing through ELMS and freeing water companies to invest to incentivise these improvements in resilience? I refer the House to my registered interest as a farmer and landowner.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
Within Defra we have a number of programmes to do with rewetting, tree planting and supporting farmers—we have talked about reservoirs for farmers—but also holding water better. We can look at balancing ponds, for example, which the Government have been supporting through the different river trusts. There is a lot of work going on there. The important thing is to make sure that it is co-ordinated and happening in the right place.
Baroness Ritchie of Downpatrick (Lab)
Over the last few days, the Secretary-General of the United Nations, António Guterres, has indicated that the world is facing an exceptional El Niño impact that will have a direct effect on food production and food security, notwithstanding on communities. I urge my noble friend the Minister to have immediate conversations with her ministerial colleagues in Defra and other departments to see how the UK could be battle ready to deal with this phenomenon that could impact on all our lives, particularly in our farming communities.
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
We must all be aware of the reports about the excessive El Niño we are experiencing at the moment. I am sure that this winter is going to be very difficult for many parts of the world. In this country, the National Drought Group is meeting weekly. We have the working group on flooding as well. We are looking at long-term water resources management plans to ensure sustainable water supply. The Environment Agency is reviewing all the plans in this area because we need to make sure that long term we are prepared for drought, flooding and storms, all of which cause serious disruption to water supplies, electricity supplies and so on. There is co-ordinated work across government so that when we have these serious concerns about existing and future weather, we are better prepared than we have been before.
Lord Bailey of Paddington (Con)
My Lords, reducing consumption and leakage is expected to meet more than 65% of England’s projected water shortfall. Will the Government make executive bonuses and dividends, and future bill increases, conditional on companies meeting binding water leakage reduction targets and preventing supply interruptions?
Baroness Hayman of Ullock (Lab)
Water companies already have leakage targets, which they are expected to meet. I say from a personal point of view that United Utilities seems to be going like the clappers at the moment—virtually every road around our village is shut as it beavers away mending leaks. Perhaps the issues around water shortages this summer have focused water companies’ minds a bit more on the need to ramp up that work.
Arrangement of Business
Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Wilson of Sedgefield) (Lab)
My Lords, before we consider the next Motion, I remind Members that, as set out in today’s list, speeches in the debate should be limited to three minutes, with the exception of those of the mover and the Minister. I am sure I speak on behalf of Members across the House when I say that I would be grateful if they would stick to this advisory speaking time to ensure that the Minister has adequate time to respond to the points raised.
Skills, Vocational Training, and Further and Higher Education
(1 day, 7 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Morgan of Huyton
That this House takes note of the action needed on skills, vocational training, and further and higher education to improve outcomes for those from deprived and disadvantaged communities and strengthen regional growth.
Baroness Morgan of Huyton (Lab)
My Lords, I declare my interests as set out in the register. There have been so many reports about the importance of vocational education and our inability as a country to deliver. Many of us in this House have been part of these arguments for years—it is good to see the noble Lord, Lord Baker, in his place—and there is real expertise and experience here. This issue is too important for point-scoring or positioning from any of us. The change needed demands detailed work and we need to thrash this through together, not to seek a fuzzy consensus but to get solutions that survive longer than a Parliament.
I hope we can start by agreeing on four principles: first, the importance of aspiration for all students; secondly, the importance of literacy and numeracy for all; thirdly, the need to avoid completely separate vocational or academic pathways; and fourthly, a recognition that a significant group of young people are failed by the current system. I declare an interest as a member of the independent inquiry into white working-class educational outcomes, co-chaired by my noble friend Lady Morris of Yardley and Sir Hamid Patel. Its findings run through what I want to say. I will also draw on the Milburn review and a range of other evidence for which I am grateful.
The facts are stark. About 1.25 million white British pupils are eligible for free school meals, of whom only just over a third achieve a grade 4 or above in GCSE English and maths. Of course, that reflects a gap that starts pre school and is picked up at the phonics screen and at the end of primary. As inquiry members, we did not find a lack of aspiration; rather, there was pride, resilience and solidarity, and young people who want good lives in the places they come from. But we did hear of structural barriers and a slow erosion of trust—a growing sense that the system is not designed for people like them. That said, we found great schools and colleges achieving strong outcomes for exactly these children, so none of this is inevitable.
That brings me to the second principle, and I want to be blunt: no vocational offer can compensate for weak literacy and numeracy. Alun Francis, chair of the Social Mobility Commission, makes the point sharply. FE colleges already have many young people whose general education has been poor, large numbers are resitting English and maths, and a quarter of 19 year-olds still have limited literacy and numeracy. For most of that group, a technical course will not solve the problem. For those with very low grades, endless resitting helps with neither motivation nor prospects. The Government are right to identify that those with very low grades need another way to develop literacy and numeracy. Those who have a good chance of getting the grades should try again: Mr Milburn’s review identifies English and maths at grade 4 as one of the best defences a young person has against becoming NEET.
The answer at key stage 4 is not straightforward and it needs work. We need sustained investment in subject expertise, curriculum leadership and instructional coaching in English and maths in particular. In my view, the full range of GCSEs should remain but not be the only option for all students. There needs to be a new focus on work-readiness skills, and that means that accountability measures will need change.
Thirdly, and most importantly for this debate today, we must not build two separate systems. The idea that we should sort children at 14 or 16 into the academic and the practical is recurring, simplistic and wrong. Academic and technical learning are not alternatives; they are complementary and, increasingly, people need both. Technical jobs require cognitive as well as practical skills. We all begin with a general education and many then move into vocational training. What differs is the stage at which the transition happens: a solicitor after a degree, a construction craft apprentice at 16, a higher apprentice in cyber security at 18, and so on. The danger comes when we conflate technical learning with a solution for disengaged pupils. Britain has done this repeatedly, and each time we have reduced the cognitive content and lowered the bar. NVQs separated competence from knowledge and flattered league tables. Too often, the 16 year-olds who took them were not ready for work and could not progress. It was not fair on the students, so let us remember that lesson.
There is also a delivery question that we tend to duck. We know that health and social care cannot be taught out of a textbook by a biology teacher. Serious technical learning needs teachers with industry expertise, employers involved in curriculum design and delivery, and environments that simulate the workplace. The Wolf review’s answer, that colleges should deliver options for 14 to 16 year-olds alongside GCSEs, probably remains the right one, and strategic authorities or mayors could now broker it across groups of schools. But the offer must be high quality, delivered by specialists and targeted at those who want it—not aimed primarily at disengaged pupils and not there to replace academic progress.
The fourth point is the scale of the failure. Teach First defines persistently disadvantaged pupils as those on free school meals for at least 80% of their education. Its research shows that these students are three times more likely to disappear than their better-off peers. It suggests that the Government should formally define persistent disadvantage, track these pupils’ destinations and name them in the risk-of-NEET guidance. Those are modest asks, and I hope that the Minister will look at them. This matters because of where these young people end up. Alan Milburn’s interim review found more than one million 16 to 24 year-olds not in education, employment or training, at an annual cost to the country of £125 billion—more than we spend on education. How crazy is that?
Further education colleges should be local engines of progression, and they need serious investment in staff, facilities and long-term employer partnerships to become them. Their funding was decimated post 2010, and the 16-19 review of funding for schools and colleges that will happen in the next couple of years is important. The 16-19 cohort is the poor relation in the system. FE colleges enjoy popular support in many communities, more than any other part of the post-16 system, so there is much to build on, but they too need to change. Too much provision is still shaped by what colleges have historically taught and by what recruits students, rather than by what local employers need.
I have found alternatives and want to talk briefly about Wigan. The college there has aligned itself deliberately with the local care sector—one of the borough’s largest employers, which is facing chronic recruitment pressure. Working hand in hand with the local authority, it has built a specialist centre for health and social care. It runs a traineeship, developed with the council, which takes local 16 to 24 year-olds and combines work experience, on-the-job training and recognised qualifications—a direct pipeline into care careers. On campus, it has created a simulated home environment where students train on the care technology and adaptations that they will use at work. Practitioners from the sector teach alongside college staff. Young people leave with a job to go to, employers get the workforce they cannot otherwise find and the public purse spends less on vacancies, agency staff and unemployment.
Now imagine that repeated properly: colleges in coastal towns building provision around ports, energy and engineering, colleges in manufacturing areas co-designing courses with the funds on their doorstep, colleges everywhere working with the NHS, councils and care providers, which are so often the largest employers in exactly the towns we are talking about. That is the bargain. Employers, public and private, shape what colleges teach. Colleges give employers a reason to invest, to offer placements and to hire locally.
On apprenticeships, let us be straightforward here: the system is not working. We need a massive expansion of opportunity in poorer communities. There has been a repeated, systemic failure to deliver the scale that successive Governments have promised. Indeed, apprenticeship starts for 16 year-olds have fallen by 40%. Apprenticeships are skewed to older people and affluent areas. In areas dominated by smaller employers, there are simply fewer to be had overall, and the levy bureaucracy favours large organisations in urban economies. It must be made far easier for small and medium-sized employers to take on apprentices: simplify levy transfers, cut the admin burden, provide funding certainty and give combined authorities the money and the responsibility to broker locally, and deal with the mundane barriers that decide real lives. Do not let a bus fare be the reason a young person turns down a college place.
The Government have rightly made economic growth their central mission, but we cannot complain of labour shortages, low growth and rising welfare bills while the talent of over a million young people goes to waste. As our population ages, we will depend ever more heavily on this generation to work, pay taxes and sustain our public services. Perhaps for the first time in two centuries, ill health among the young is now actually shrinking the labour supply. What I have described is not a welfare programme; it is supply-side economics for the places growth has forgotten. Wigan’s answer to its care workforce shortage costs far less than the price of continuing to fail, and there is a version of it waiting to be built around the country.
Let me be clear: this is not an argument against university. Higher education remains and must remain an important destination for academically able young people, whatever their background. The scandal is that too few from poor communities get there. Some are deterred not by lack of ability but by fear of debt. This means looking again at maintenance and living cost support alongside bursaries, scholarships, and employer co-investment. The failure is twofold: too few young people from these communities who could thrive at university are getting there, and too few of those for whom university is not the right route have a high-quality alternative worth choosing. Higher education needs to change too: more modular, commuter-based and work-integrated study, stronger level 4 and 5 pathways, and employer-backed degrees tied to local industries. Young people should not feel that accessing high-quality higher education is possible only by leaving home or taking on excessive financial burdens.
In particular, I ask the Minister whether the Government will respond to the inquiry’s report and to the Milburn review together, because they are, in essence, two halves of one problem. Will they act on the specific proposals to open apprenticeships to smaller employers, and to reform accountability so that sustained progression into apprenticeships and skilled work counts equally alongside progression to university? Will they back further education with both the investment and the expectation of appropriate delivery—it has to be a deal—so that more colleges are tied into the needs of local economies? Crucially, will the Government commit to the long haul? Closing this gap is the work of a decade, not a Parliament.
I end these comments not in despair but with ambition. I think we know what is needed. We also know that it needs real rigour to get the right policies and the delivery. What is needed now is the collective will to do it. I beg to move.
Lord Baker of Dorking (Con)
My Lords, I congratulate the noble Baroness on initiating this debate. We have not debated practical and technical education in this House since 2010, so this is the first time in 16 years, and we have three minutes—it is absurd. This House is not holding the Government to account on education; we should have an education Select Committee.
I also congratulate the Minister, the noble Baroness, Lady Smith, on holding her position in government. There was no chance of her being dropped—she is far too talented—but I thought she might be promoted; I am glad she has not been for the time being, because her knowledge in education is profound. What is more, her real virtue is that she supports the colleges I have been promoting for 15 years; that is, university technical colleges.
Those colleges provide education for 14 to 18 year-olds, and we now have 44 colleges and 21,000 students. The thing of which I am most proud is that they have the lowest level of youth unemployment of any schools in the country. If you leave a bog-standard comprehensive, there is an unemployment rate of 16.4%; it is less than 5% for those leaving a UTC. Last year, 22 of our colleges provided no one who was NEET, and that is unique.
So we need technical and practical education in our schools. These colleges are very popular; we have 45, but we have to turn 5,000 or 6,000 children away each year. We need therefore to expand, but we cannot expand by having new schools, because none will be built in Britain for five or seven years due to falling school rolls. We have devised a way in which we can improve technical and practical education fundamentally by inserting into a bog-standard comprehensive a sleeve of practical and technical education from 14 to 18—the UTC sleeve, as it is called. I am glad to say that one of these is going to open next week in Barrow-in-Furness. BAE Systems has its factories there, but it cannot recruit students from the schools in Cumbria suitable for what it wants to do. This school will be operational next week. There will be 120 students starting, and they will decide themselves whether they want to go down the technical or the academic route. Some 90 so far have elected to do the technical route and 30 the academic, all under the same roof. That is a triumph.
Quite apart from that, I am glad to say that Andy Burnham is very keen on UTCs and sleeves, because he asked us two or three years to deliver the MBacc. A sleeve will start in a Manchester school next year, providing practical and technical education between the ages of 14 to 18. We therefore have the support of rather a key figure in this area, but we need many more.
The thing about our schools is that a good technical education needs workshops as well as classrooms; some have to be converted. It needs machines such as milling machines, lathes, laser cutters, metrology mechanics, and CAD and CAM software. It also needs teachers capable of teaching those subjects to the children; that is, people who have had experience in business. It also needs the active support of local companies so that they can take their youngsters into their workshops, into their factories, for practical experience. I suppose that the Government will wait for Mr Milburn on technical education, but I hope that when we hear of their policy, they will recognise that they have a model for expansion, which is the UTC sleeve. That is the real heart of it.
I will give one small piece of advice to the Minister. I hope that when Mr Milburn has replied and the Government develop the policy and announce it, they will not just start technical education at the age of 16. That is too late; it should start at 14. We are the only country in Europe that does not teach its children below 16 practical and technical education. That is one reason why youth unemployment in Germany is exactly half of ours.
This is an important debate; I thank the noble Baroness again for raising it—it is excellent. I hope the Government will come forward with proposals as soon as possible. The thing about the sleeve is that it can be done instantly and quickly. I offer one last piece of advice to the Minister: whatever she comes up with in terms of the policy, it should not start at 16. We must start at 14. We are the only country that does not teach children below 16 a technical education. We are on the cusp of something very important and very exciting, and this will help the Government because it will stimulate economic growth.
Lord Addington (LD)
My Lords, I have listened to the first two speeches. The noble Baroness, Lady Morgan, hit on something towards the end of her speech that I do not think anybody who knows anything about the subject will disagree with. It is the work of a decade to correct the problems here. You have to get into a system and change it, you have to change the cultures and the training, and you have to make people think in a slightly new way.
The NEET problem, according to everything that anyone who has been here has listened to, and according to the Library briefing, has been growing for over a decade. It is a fact that a group of children, who are now young and established adults, have gone through a system of education that does not seem to have touched them or brought them in in any way or form. Many of them left the education process way before they reached the end of compulsory education, and people have been happy about it. I say that because the first report I have seen into off-rolling in the schools system came out of the House of Commons in 2020. Something about our current structure of education means that anybody who is not a benefit to their school in terms of examination grades is a real problem not only to the school but to the professional and personal development of those running it. If we can do something here that starts to address that, we will do something very positive.
The noble Baroness said quite a lot and referred to basic skills, such as English and maths—and the Minister will probably have written that into her response to me. I am dyslexic. I am president of the British Dyslexia Association. I still would not pass a written exam in English. You struggle with maths because it is simply a different language, and the language-processing bits in the brain do not pick it up as fast. The papering over of the cracks of short-term memory is still there, so you will always have these problems—and that is just one group. Anybody who struggles with special educational needs, or who comes from a home that simply does not take them seriously, is always going to struggle with these skills. We have to find better ways forward. I congratulate the Government, and indeed the previous Government, on emphasising the level 2 lower entrance requirements to go on and train. If we are to do this, we must stop people being isolated and branded failures so early. The new SEN paper may well start to address this but, once again, it is the work of a decade.
I see that the Clock is against me. Openers used to get a wee bit longer, but there we are. When the Minister comes to respond, I hope she will emphasise how we are stopping people being branded failures and making sure that schools and the education sector are given a reward for keeping these people in school and not punished when it comes to league tables.
The Lord Bishop of Leicester
My Lords, I too am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan, for securing this debate. I also express my gratitude to Alan Milburn and his team for firmly putting the number of young people out of education, employment and training on the political agenda. I think there is real cross-party consensus on the need to address what Alan Milburn was right to call a “moral crisis” facing our young people today. I sincerely hope that when the second part of his review is published, his recommendations will be taken seriously. Mr Milburn referred to the drivers behind rising NEET rates as a whole-system crisis; I would go further and characterise it as a whole-society crisis. There is an important role for community organisations to play—whether they are faith groups, uniformed groups, sports clubs or youth clubs—and for all of us as neighbours, friends and mentors to young people.
In my time today, I want to focus on one area specifically: volunteering opportunities. They provide the intermediate layer between individual and labour markets and can help build young people’s skills and confidence to equip them for the world of work. Many of us will be familiar with the experience trap. When you are first trying to get a foot on the career ladder, you need so many years of experience to get a job, but a job is the only way to get that experience. This is where community groups can make a real difference. In these settings, young people can learn, practise and develop new skills, and ideally have their first leadership opportunities. Developing skills is not simply a matter of absorbing knowledge—which is where the classroom environment is at its strongest. It is about having one’s gifts and talents recognised, put into practice and stretched.
In the most recent government youth social action survey—which, noble Lords might be disappointed to hear, has not been run since 2019—over half of 16 to 20 year-olds said that social action had improved their self-confidence and communication skills. Significant numbers also reported improvements to their ability to work as a team and motivate others, and to their social skills more generally. I urge the Government to think holistically about skills development, the foundations for learning—here the Government’s ambitions for reducing child poverty are especially important—and the many contexts in which all this can take place. These include, but are not limited to, colleges and universities.
I am impressed by the Government’s ambition in introducing work experience placements for young people long out of work—but, as it stands, these placements will reach fewer than one in 10 of the roughly 948,000 young people not in education, employment or training. Will the Government consider adding a supported volunteering strand, delivered through the volunteering community and faith sector, to their skills, vocational training, FE and HE strategy? In so doing, I believe the Government could help thousands more escape the experience trap, realise their potential and help society benefit from their gifts.
Lord Barber of Chittlehampton (Lab)
My Lords, it is an honour to follow the right reverend Prelate; I strongly support the sentiments he described. I also thank the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan, for putting this on the agenda in the way that the noble Lord, Lord Baker, welcomed, because it is such a fundamental subject and theme for us. I also thank her for her excellent speech; I agreed with every word.
Next month will be the 50th anniversary of James Callaghan’s famous speech at Ruskin College, in which he drew attention to the need to focus on standards and employability. We are still working on the legacy of that. The other person I want to draw attention to is the noble Lord, Lord Baker. I am honoured and privileged to follow him in this debate. We are all in his debt, not just for the amazing Education Reform Act 1988 but for his continuing 40 years of work to drive higher education standards. He is an exemplar to us all.
Over the decades since that 1988 legislation, the school system in this country has become globally admired. The reason is not the debates we have had—of course there have been disagreements—but that, underlying them, there have been some fundamental principles that all Governments have stuck to over that time: education is a priority; you need to set standards, devolve budgets and responsibility to schools, hold them to account, intervene decisively if they are underperforming and focus all the time on the quality of teaching. Those principles have been adhered to for the last 30 or 40 years. Conceptually, it is not difficult. The difficulty is ensuring that consistent adherence over time, and this has never been the case with vocational skills and FE. There has been too much chopping and changing and not enough focus on the quality of teaching. We might have led the world in this field too, but so far we have chosen not to. Now is the time we should choose to do so.
Taking the new Prime Minister’s lead, we are now in a position to do exactly that. We can develop the kind of agenda that the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan, laid out. The four principles that she outlined are excellent. I add that we need better articulation between schools, colleges and universities; we need to build further and faster on the welcome recent progress in careers guidance; we need thriving apprenticeships that build a ladder all the way up to degree apprenticeships; we need a demand-led system—as the noble Baroness advocated—and employers who encourage work placements and spell out what they want in detail at a level of specificity; and, above all, across parties we will need to give this consistent priority over the decade that the noble Baroness referred to. Let us now choose to lead the world in skills, employability and vocational education. That is the road to 21st-century prosperity. It will take a decade, but we can start today.
Baroness Fraser of Craigmaddie (Con)
My Lords, I add my thanks to the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan, for securing today’s debate. I will focus on an area too often treated as niche, but which I believe tests our whole approach to skills, vocational training and further and higher education. I am talking of the training pipeline for professional dance.
My researcher, Emilia Braddon, as part of the King’s College London parliamentary internship programme helped produce our report called “Creating the Next Billy Elliot”. It found that specialist dance training, though an internationally renowned area, is under real threat from funding pressures, policy blind spots and declining access. Dance and the performing arts contribute over £11 billion in gross value added to our economy, yet the pipeline behind that contribution—the music and dance scheme and the centres for advanced training—face rising costs, no real-terms funding increase, one-year cycles that leave families unable to plan and lost outreach grants that once found the talent in the deprived and disadvantaged communities that we are focused on in today’s debate.
Talent is, sadly, not enough. Geography matters. A child in Wakefield or Bradford can reach training in Leeds; a child of equal talent in Bournemouth without the means to travel to London often cannot. Nor is this an England-only regional issue. The Royal Conservatoire of Scotland offers training of genuine international standing, but a child in the highlands faces the same barriers as one in Cumbria. Because skills policy is devolved, our funding schemes and our data on where the gaps lie stop dead at the border. I would therefore advocate a pan-UK mapping exercise and far greater cross-Administration co-operation.
Underpinning everything is funding stability. It is disappointing that the Government have yet to confirm funding beyond the current 2026-27 cycle when MDS schools are auditioning for 2027-28 right now. Funding for outreach must be treated as infrastructure, not as an optional extra, or the pipeline will never reach the children who need it most.
Finally, strengthening regional growth in all postcodes across the UK requires genuine four nations co-operation. Westminster, Holyrood, the Senedd and Stormont need to share data, best practice and—where it makes sense—co-funding routes. None of this is about one art form or one sector, region or nation. It is about whether a talented child, wherever they are born, has a fair, funded and stable route to vocational success.
Baroness Hunter of Auchenreoch (Lab)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lady Morgan, who is a good friend, for introducing this debate and the noble Lord, Lord Baker, also a good friend, for his customary eloquent insights.
The Milburn review is a shocking read. If the million NEETs were to form a city, it would be the third-largest in the UK—larger than Leeds, Glasgow or Cardiff—costing the taxpayer and the economy, as already mentioned, £125 billion a year. Yet Milburn found that 84% of NEETs want to be in a job, education or training and are held back by low expectations and confusing routes into the adult world. I spoke recently at a school in Kent about the amazing opportunities available to people with STEM qualifications. Two girls came up to me and asked, “Do you really think we could be engineers?”. “Of course”, I said, “Why not?”. “My dad says it’s a boy’s job. He says I should do hairdressing”, came the reply.
I wish to advocate for girls like her who are disadvantaged just by being female. Their aspirations are not being guided towards the STEM skills critically needed—a million more workers by 2030 in AI, robotics, cyber, energy, engineering, health and more. The Royal Academy of Engineering—I declare an interest as a former director—reports that only 17% of its STEM taskforce are female. Women and girls make up half of apprenticeships, but only 14% complete them; 78% of girls aged 11 to 17 express an interest in tech, but only half pursue it. The newly introduced T-levels have only a 12% female take-up. Yet, without welcoming more girls, there is no hope of creating the workforce of the future. Their potential has barely been tapped.
The Royal Academy has called for engagement from primary school on, with STEM-related activities featuring female role models, a modernised curriculum, early high-quality careers advice and clearer routes into work. Girls need to know about someone such as Clare Grey, developing advanced batteries on the Ox-Cam growth corridor, one of the world’s leading science and innovation clusters which is generating £143 billion for the economy every year. I welcome the Prime Minister’s recent announcement on tailored access for children aged 14 to technical skills in every postcode, building on local opportunities and mobilising mayors, local leaders, employers and educators. Young people have not given up on work, and we must not give up on them. I know all noble Lords will do our work to support them.
Baroness Morris of Yardley (Lab)
My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan, for introducing this debate and for the way in which she presented it. I sense, as the noble Lord, Lord Barber, said, that this could be a time when we might make the changes that we have failed to make over the last half a century or more. Despite our pride in what is a good and improving school system in this country, we have a record of relative failure on vocational routes.
The noble Baroness, Lady Morgan, referred to the White Working Class Educational Outcomes report, on which we both served. To be honest, for all my years in education, I was genuinely surprised and frightened by the level of disengagement there is between people living in these communities and what the education and school system is delivering for them at the moment.
Vocational education, which is the type of route to a better life that these communities particularly value, delivers poorer outcomes and poorer opportunities for people from these communities than it does for many people from more affluent ones. Instinctively, we all know that, if you begin to look at the good apprenticeships that we now have, they are not being accessed by people from white working-class communities. Fewer people from deprived backgrounds are taking the degree apprenticeship route than are attending Russell group universities or the university sector in general. This is not about saying, “That’s a route that serves people from this community”, but it is about offering real choice. While the curriculum is less rigorous, the qualifications are less coherent and the routes to employment are less clear, this route will not serve either the people in deprived communities or the nation and the economy in the way that we need it to.
I welcome the Government’s announcements so far in this field, but adding technical education to one basket in 14 to 16 education is not going to cut it. I worry that our thinking is limited by worry about our past failures. Very often when I start a conversation on vocational routes, the first thing anyone says is, “We can’t go back to splitting people into sheep and goats”. Of course we cannot. No one wants that now. A knowledge-based curriculum is there for everyone, but we should not let our past failures blind us to the need to get this right—and we should believe in our own ability to do so.
I have never quite bought into the phrase, “You can’t be what you can’t see”. I never use it. I do not like it. It underestimates the vision, imagination and determination of young people to be what they want to be. But I am sure that those young people cannot achieve what they believe and dream they can if they cannot see a clear route as to how to get there. That is the challenge that we face now. I very much hope that the Minister will build on the work she has already done in delivering it.
Lord Lingfield (Con)
My Lords, I too thank the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan. I remind your Lordships of my interest as chairman of the Chartered Institution for Further Education and the Cadet Vocational College. It is about that FE college that I want to speak briefly this afternoon.
Community cadets are a growing and vital part of our education service in many areas of disadvantage. These are of course the Army Cadet Force, the Royal Air Force Air Cadets, and the Sea Cadets and Royal Marines Cadets. The boys and girls who take part are often those whom conventional training providers find it difficult to reach. We tend to think of cadet activities as being simply of recreational benefit, but it is clear that the cadet experience provides crucial vocational skills as well. The recent four-year review commissioned by the Ministry of Defence and carried out by a team from the University of Northampton concluded that participation in the cadet forces has
“significant positive impacts on … employment and career prospects”.
These are
“particularly strong for those cadets that suffer economic and other disadvantages”.
This, they concluded, is because cadet activities develop self-sufficiency, self-control, confident communication and resilience, all of which are closely correlated with employability.
In addition, for some time, the Cadet Vocational College has made it possible for these young people to undertake vocational programmes through the medium of their cadet forces. Some 4,000 or 5,000 learners each year take advantage of these courses, which support progression into further education, higher education and apprenticeships. Among them are many who do not thrive in traditional school environments but, outside the conventional classroom setting, get a second chance. Qualification completion via the college is regularly around 85%. The reach of the college’s work is UK-wide and represents a very successful partnership between government and the voluntary sector. I sincerely pay tribute to Ministers and officials at the Ministry of Defence and the Department for Education who underpin the college’s work by their encouragement, support and grant funding, which enables many disadvantaged young people to begin their paths to employability at no cost to themselves. Next week, the Cadet Vocational College’s dozen most successful cadets in the country will come with their parents and cadet leaders here to the Cholmondeley Room and the Terrace to celebrate their success.
Cadet-based vocational education reaches young people through organisations they trust and experiences they value. I commend the work of the Cadet Vocational College to your Lordships’ House.
Baroness Warwick of Undercliffe (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lady Morgan for securing this debate. Her presentation was a tour de force. Having spent much of my career in higher education, I will make three points specifically about that.
First, this is one system, not two. The Government’s ambition that two-thirds of young people reach higher-level learning by 25 is the right one. Today, the figure is around half. That gap will not be closed by either colleges or universities alone. We often frame the choice as university or skills, academic or vocational. That is a false choice—Dearing said so in 1997, Augur said so 20 years later, my noble friend Lady Morgan said it today and I am happy to repeat it. Universities should be progression partners for FE and apprenticeships.
The sector itself has taken action. Last autumn, Universities UK and the Association of Colleges published a joint strategy for colleges and universities to collaborate rather than compete. London South Bank’s group structure carries learners from entry-level, technical training and T-levels through to degree level. In Greater Manchester, universities and colleges align provision, avoid duplication and plan against regional need. This matters most to the young people at risk of becoming NEET, who face several barriers at once and whom no institution can help alone.
Secondly, funding should follow the student and should not fall in real terms. I welcome fee caps rising with inflation, and I hope that automatic indexation is honoured in legislation. This is not a subsidy to institutions; it is a guarantee that a student starting in 2030 is not taught on less than a student starting today. This is the hardest graduate market in over a decade, yet the most recent Graduate Outcomes data shows that 88% of graduates are in work or further study 15 months on, and around three-quarters of those work in high-skilled jobs. Our nurses, teachers, engineers, paramedics and social workers all hold degrees.
Thirdly, universities make a substantial contribution to local communities and those from disadvantaged backgrounds, which deserves to be recognised. Across the UK, they generate £265 billion in economic impact annually, support around 768,000 jobs and play a central role in attracting investment, fostering innovation and helping businesses grow. The Atom Valley innovation district in Rochdale has established a centre of expertise in advanced materials and sustainability—CEAMS—jointly delivered by Rochdale Development Agency and the University of Manchester. It is ensuring that businesses with strong potential can access the tools and support needed to grow. Universities should connect skills to employers and regional economies.
We need strong colleges, strong universities and strong partnerships between them. This is an ambition worthy of our support. As the Prime Minister writes his 10-year plan, will the Minister ensure that higher education is treated as part of the answer on opportunity, not as a competitor?
Baroness Blackstone (Lab)
My Lords, I welcome this debate but have just one regret: it is half the length needed to allow over 30 speakers properly to address the important and complex questions it raises. I intend to focus on just one issue: the need to avoid reinventing the wheel and instead return to the Tomlinson report of 2004, which provides a brilliant approach for our curriculum and exam reforms to attacking educational disadvantage among pupils aged 14 and over.
Alan Milburn reminds us in his interim report on 16 to 24 year-old NEETs that they now constitute one in eight young people. He makes it clear that it is not a new problem but is getting worse, with growing numbers demotivated from learning, absent from school and without a job later. This is a drag on economic growth and a huge loss of individual potential. The Prime Minister recognises the need to address it via vast improvements in technical and vocational education from the age of 14 to encourage those turned off by the current school curriculum and to improve their chances of employment. This is welcome, but there is a danger that his proposals will divide pupils permanently at the early age of 14 without the flexibility to move later from one to the other. We ditched the 11-plus; we must not introduce a 14-plus.
Enter the Tomlinson report: it strove to integrate academic and vocational education, recognising that those opting for an academic route need skills too. They also need to acquire an ability to apply their knowledge. All young people need academic and vocational education at school after the age of 14. Those underachieving all need not just vocational study but literacy, functional maths, communication and ICT, as Tomlinson proposed. He recommended the rationalisation of qualifications into a new diploma framework, dropping both GCSEs—which, scandalously, nearly one-third of pupils fail at present—and the narrow and overspecialised A-level system. His report was backed by Education Ministers at the time but rejected by Tony Blair, who feared a fight or row about A-levels. Failing to take it forward was a wasted opportunity and, I believe, led to magnifying the NEET problem we now face. If it had been implemented then, we would have had a totally different and far better system after 10 years. I think it was Blair’s greatest mistake in domestic policy.
Will the Minister and her senior colleagues, including the Prime Minister, return to the Tomlinson report and consult its author and Peter Hyman, a former special adviser under Blair, who advocates it and has thought about a few ways that are needed to update it?
The Lord Bishop of Coventry
My Lords, I welcome the Government’s renewed focus on technical education, youth employment and regional growth. Vocational and technical education can be one of the strongest levers for social mobility, but only where it is genuinely accessible to those who face the greatest barriers. On numerous occasions over the past 30 years of ministry, I have seen young people thrive and flourish into work due to the investment of colleges and businesses working together to enable this to happen.
Although there have been many reasons to be encouraged during my tenure so far in Coventry, it was deeply discouraging to learn of this year’s 9% GCSE attainment gap between London and my region, the West Midlands. If we are serious about opportunity in our nation, we must ensure that high-quality technical pathways are available to all young people wherever they live and not only in areas that already benefit from stronger educational outcomes. I believe that we cannot develop high-level apprenticeships at the expense of levels 2 to 4. These entry-level routes are often the vital first step towards skilled employment and further progression.
Apprenticeships must be accessible to the third of over-16s without a grade 4 in English and maths. Too often, these young people become stuck in a repeating cycle of resits, without means of professional development. Apprenticeships must both remain open to those without GCSE qualifications and provide flexible opportunities to develop literacy and numeracy while employed. This is particularly important for SEND learners, as we have heard, for whom repeated GCSE resits can become a source of frustration and disengagement, despite strong vocational talents. Fewer than 27% of adults with learning disabilities are in paid employment, but Mencap’s research shows that 86% of unemployed people with a learning disability desperately want to work, with all the rights, responsibilities and dignity that this brings. Apprenticeships can also provide an invaluable route into work for those for whom English is not their first language, and whose education may have been disrupted by migration, displacement or family trauma.
We must recognise potential wherever it is found, rather than excluding people because they did not reach a particular academic threshold at 16. Without flexible vocational pathways, capable young people, as we have heard, risk leaving education altogether and becoming NEET. The economic costs of this are significant but so too are the social and personal consequences, and I note especially the mental ill-health crisis prevalent in this generation.
Locally, I have been encouraged by the work of Moreton Morrell College in Warwickshire. For example, its levels 2 to 4 floristry course provides a valuable vocational pathway for young people, and I have seen how their work has enriched churches and communities in my diocese. Importantly, it also provides pathways into careers in farming and agriculture, a vital component of the rural economy.
People flourish best when they can develop their skills holistically while contributing to the common life. This is a vital, dignifying, individual and social good.
Baroness Whitaker (Lab)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the inclusive approach of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Coventry. I congratulate my noble friend Lady Morgan on instigating a vital debate, and my noble friend the Minister on policies that widen access to skills and training, but some will not reach these opportunities. Alan Milburn’s searing diagnosis notes that 50.8% of females and 41.3% of males characterised as “White: Gypsy or Irish Traveller” are NEET. He says that
“Black, African and Caribbean young people had the highest NEET rates of all ethnic groups included in large scale national surveys”,
but Gypsy, Roma and Irish Travellers are, in the National Institute of Economic and Social Research report,
“2.5 – 3 times more likely to be NEET”
than average. Their increase in NEET status is 210% for Irish Travellers and 155% for Roma. However, the population context, at 0.16% of 18 to 24 year-olds, is too small for large-scale surveys. My first plea to my noble friend the Minister is to include in government analyses specific research into this neglected minority, and disaggregate Gypsies, Irish Travellers and Roma students so that the experience of these very different communities is clearly seen.
Alan Milburn omits race prejudice, the cause of negative assumptions about motivation and ability. The EHRC reports that Gypsy, Roma and Traveller families experienced the highest level of prejudice of any minority ethnic group. Those who succeed in work often hide their heritage, thus also hiding useful role models. He is surely right that alienation from paths to qualifications and employment begins in school. Gypsy, Irish Traveller and Roma children—again, because their actual experience tends not to be identified—suffer different but widespread bullying and have a far higher dropout rate in all schools from that and other causes than any other minority ethnic group. Often, it is the provoked victim who is excluded, not the perpetrator, but there is no proper research. NGOs point to a lack of valuing of their cultures and history—the Council of Europe ranks the UK lowest in coverage of Roma experience and history in textbooks—lack of positive contact with parents, digital exclusion, especially during the Covid lockdown, and lack of support to get such children up to entry to skills training.
I recommend this month’s Friends, Families and Travellers report on educational inequalities for useful proposals. I declare an interest as its president. FFT’s pledge to get schools to report on progress to welcome their Gypsy, Traveller and Roma students works, as does a successful initiative for higher education institutions, which I was proud to launch in your Lordships’ House. Will my noble friend the Minister affirm her support? The gap is now in further education institutions, of particular importance for the acquisition of skills. How can my noble friend help here?
Without more practical attention, some marginalised families will continue to behave in a marginalised way and very many others will never get the chance they—and we all—could use well. Should we really allow this injustice to continue?
Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Wilson of Sedgefield) (Lab)
Before we move on to the next speaker, this is a very important debate and I am really enjoying listening to it, but we need to stick to the three-minute limit. We are going over only by several seconds, but those seconds add up, and we do need to hear from the Minister.
Baroness Garden of Frognal (LD)
My Lords, I too thank the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan, for this debate and her masterly opening remarks. It is most welcome that this Government have realised how harmful has been the purely academic emphasis of the previous Government, which alienated the many young people whose skills and interests lie in practical, vocational subjects. It generated a harmful waste of potential in the skill areas which the country desperately needs: engineering, construction, hospitality, as well as the arts, music, dance—which the noble Baroness, Lady Fraser, spoke about—and arts and craft skills. Some of those historic crafts have become endangered, as detailed by the Heritage Crafts Association, of which I have the privilege of being a vice-patron. Many of these crafts have regional associations and generate jobs and pride in their localities, as well as producing practical and beautiful artefacts which can be life-enhancing for those who have been marginalised by their formal schooling. Can the Minister say what measures are being taken to ensure that there are trained teachers in the vocational areas to ensure that all children find something at school to enthuse them?
We should also be mindful of speakers of other languages at a time when ESOL—English for speakers of other languages—provision has become fragmented for over 5 million people in England and Wales who do not have English as a first language. Time was when such classes were free and opened opportunities to many people to use their skills and talents in this country. Sadly, those days have gone, but community cohesion is increasingly important as we see divisions in race and religion becoming violent in some of our communities. Surely ensuring that we all have a common language should be given a high priority. Can the Minister say what provision is made available for ESOL classes to enable better integration of our citizens who struggle to speak good English?
As a former chair of the Cadet Health Check Team, I strongly support the words of the noble Lord, Lord Lingfield, in pointing out the value of the cadet forces, which give life-changing opportunities to so many young people. I worked for City & Guilds for some 20 years on vocational qualifications, which opened my eyes to the amazing work of further education colleges, which are too often overlooked. One problem is that nearly all politicians and civil servants have taken the university route and are reluctant to give due attention and funding to a sector with which they have no connections and see as not so worthy. Yet FE carries the hopes and aspirations of millions of young people, and indeed of adults seeking to improve or change their qualifications and chances in life.
For many disadvantaged young people and those with learning disabilities, the prospect of going away to university is daunting and financially unrealistic, whereas their local college is accessible. Colleges offer such a wide range of programmes of learning, from basic skills through to occupational competence and indeed apprenticeships and degrees. Yet their staff are still underpaid and the colleges underfunded. What do the Government propose to do to support and enhance the vital work of further education colleges, which would also be a key factor in solving the NEETs problem?
Baroness Caine of Kentish Town (Lab)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend Lady Morgan for her excellent speech and this important debate, which is ever more critical as we live in and look to a future revolutionised by digital automation.
The evidence is unequivocal: creativity is becoming one of the most critical human capabilities. Deloitte warns of an “imagination deficit” in organisations, where curiosity, empathy and creative problem-solving are now the essential skills that enable people to thrive alongside artificial intelligence. The World Economic Forum identifies creative thinking as a top workforce skill for 2025, and LinkedIn’s global workforce survey shows that senior leaders rank creativity above analytical reasoning as the most important soft skill for the modern workplace.
Creativity is not a luxury; it is the engine of innovation, adaptability and resilience. If we are serious about preparing young people for the future, it needs to be recognised as a core capability, not peripheral or optional but central to the skills and education agenda at all levels, including higher-level skills in higher education. If we lag behind the realities of technological change, automation will not liberate opportunity; it will deepen exclusion, creating new barriers for those who already face the greatest challenges.
Creative and digital industries are two of the biggest growth sectors in our modern industrial strategy. They overlap, and so increasingly do their skill sets. A substantial proportion of England’s local authorities, including 11 of the 19 mayoral combined authorities, identify them as priorities for growth and for their skills policies.
I wholeheartedly believe that enabling devolution, collaboration and flexibilities to local areas is key to success on this agenda. However, it also needs alignment with national policy, which responds to what key industries and devolved Administrations are prioritising, and indeed what the industrial strategy is saying.
For example, in higher education, creative courses are not currently on the list as eligible for modular support through the lifelong learning entitlement, and that list has been cited as key to deciding which courses will be eligible for the soon-to-be announced maintenance grants for those from disadvantaged backgrounds. In addition, this year, no creative courses are allowed to bid to the Strategic Priorities Fund for capital grants. The message that sends out from Whitehall is that these courses are not valued as much as the very important STEM areas, and underlying that, one suspects, is reliance on debatable datasets that relate to earnings and the ability to pay back student loans.
If we want to strengthen regional prosperity and improve outcomes for disadvantaged learners, we must ensure that the skills we value and teach also match the world they are entering, not the world we are leaving behind. That is one where both digital tech and creative education need to be equally valued and ever intertwined.
Baroness Hazarika (Lab)
My Lords, I also thank the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan, for raising this very important debate. I am proud to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Caine, and indeed echo much of what she said about the importance of the creative industries.
I declare an interest: I am a board member of the BPI, which represents the recorded music sector. As we all know, the music sector brings in a huge amount of prosperity to the United Kingdom and brings us a lot of joy. It also puts so many amazing British artists on the map. We know that arts and culture has been a great British success story.
The music industry provides a good model for how we could do skills in the future, where you have industry coming together with government at a national and regional level to create brilliant institutions where young people can get world-class training in skills. Just look at the BRIT School in Croydon, or at ELAM, the East London Arts and Music school. These schools are amazing, vibrant and exciting; you go there and you feel the energy. They are like something out of the TV show “Fame”. I wanted to join, but sadly they were not taking mature students when I went along. We know so many amazing artists who went there: Adele, Olivia Dean, Raye, Lola Young. These people sell millions of albums, bring in so much money to the Exchequer and provide so much joy.
I am delighted that the music industry is working with the Government to establish a new centre of excellence in Bradford, West Yorkshire, with the BRIT School North. That brand new college will offer 500 precious places. The thing that is brilliant about these kinds of collaborations is that you are talking not only about front-of-house stars but about hundreds and hundreds of young people getting trained up with those amazing backroom jobs—production, set design, all that kind of thing—which can provide people with so many rich, interesting, varied careers.
I also just want to make the point about qualifications. We have to make sure we do not kill off the pipeline of creative talent. Last year, A-level music fell to just over 4,500 pupils. That is a great worry. The choirmaster Gareth Malone has flagged that we could be facing a “cultural crisis” due to killing off this pipeline. The number of children taking arts at GCSE level in state school has fallen by 41% since 2010. That is not a great statistic. So we must not kill the goose which lays those golden eggs.
Finally, we talk a lot about technical skills, but we need to instil confidence in young people as well. It is not just what you can do on a computer or on a screen but verbal communication, making eye contact and being able to hold conversations with people. This is a great debate and very timely.
Lord Docherty of Milngavie (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I begin by adding my thanks to my noble friend Lady Morgan for this timely debate.
I do not have time to discuss our school system and its relentless focus on A-levels, whose only purpose is to act as a kind of sorting hat for which university a pupil will attend; or why, as a number of noble Lords have mentioned, many white working-class pupils and their families do not believe that doing well at school reliably leads to opportunity, financial security and a good life; or to discuss the related need for parity of esteem between further education, apprenticeships and higher education. The Prime Minister is right to call for that.
I will instead focus on the headwinds facing adult education, which is used by adults for whom school did not work out or who wish to retrain. From 2010, funding for adult education was slashed: the number of adult learners fell from over 3 million to around half that number. Yet we are in the foothills of an economic revolution, driven by AI, of a scale not seen perhaps since the first Industrial Revolution. No one—including those developing AI—can be entirely sure where it is going to take us.
The impact of new technologies in the short term is often exaggerated, but history shows, if anything, that impact over the longer term is underestimated. So it is universally acknowledged that the impact of AI on employment and the jobs available for people to do will be unprecedented.
The nearest comparison in my lifetime was perhaps the retreat in the early 1980s in the UK from heavy extractive industries, and there are some lessons to be learned. We had long known that change in the UK was coming. In Germany they knew that too. But in Germany they prepared: from the late 1960s they planned for the transformation of the Ruhr Valley, with significant investment in further education, adult education, community engagement and infrastructure to ensure that the change was managed and that no one was left behind. In the UK we just let the market rip, and we are still living with the consequences of that.
The scale of change needed is immense. We will need new levels of innovation and investment, and perhaps, as I think the noble Baroness, Lady Morris, hinted at, the abandonment of conventional thinking, if we are to effectively support people.
Are we up to the challenge of reimagining the role of adult education, rethinking its purpose and scale, in a changing jobs market the like of which we have not seen before? To embrace the spirit of the age we have to be optimistic. We have to navigate this change. We have to plan.
Baroness Alexander of Cleveden (Lab)
My Lords, I also thank my noble friend Lady Morgan.
When I arrived in your Lordships’ House 18 months ago, I had just become the chair of the body that certifies every electrician—there are 170,000 of them across the country. I immediately encountered deep concern among employers about the fate of apprenticeships—the bureaucracy, the cost of training and the support needs of the young apprentices. This malaise deeply pained employers who had invariably come up the apprenticeship route themselves.
Many noble Lords have mentioned what has happened in the last 18 months. The Milburn report published in May has been seminal. As others have said, it has been uncompromising about the moral scandal of a million NEETs, clear that young people desperately want to work and candid about the multidimensional roots of this crisis. As so often in politics, timing matters. There is not a Member among us who did not have conversations during the Recess about the future of the jobs market. Yet the public fear that politicians, in the parlance of today, “craft the narrative” or “tell the story” but too rarely stick around to solve the problem.
So in my remaining time, I will talk about the momentum since the Milburn report—not on the supply side, which has dominated our discussions today about what is happening in the education system, but in stimulating employer demand. In June, it was £3,000 for employers taking on an eligible young person. In July, 22,000 defence apprenticeships were announced. In August, it was £10 billion for new affordable housing, fuelling new construction contracts. This month saw the first of 22,000 extra college places including free apprenticeship training for eligible under-25s. Next month, £2,000 will be paid to small employers for each new under-25 apprenticeship. November will see the nationwide rollout of the Government-backed job guarantee placement scheme for long-term unemployed young people. Altogether, all this ramps up and translates into half a million opportunities to earn or learn over the next three years. It is not the full answer, but it is getting closer to the scale of the challenge.
But success will not just come from investment, but from effectiveness. We need to strip back misplaced red tape and substitute it with a single-minded focus on skills. I am delighted that the Government are now scrapping the laundry list of social value demands for contractors bidding for public works. The complexity was trading out to common sense. From January, job creation and skills development will be the only social value requirements on businesses competing for public contracts. The Milburn report highlighted that the Netherlands has changed the trajectory and outcomes for young people. Giving a generation back their future is a battle to be won in our time. It will be done family by family, firm by firm and postcode by postcode.
Lord Nagaraju (Lab)
My Lords, I also thank my noble friend Lady Morgan for securing this important debate. I declare my interests as set out in the register, particularly as a director, adviser and shareholder in AI and tech companies.
If we are serious about social mobility, education cannot be a one-off event at the beginning of life. Disadvantage does not end at 18. Technology is now changing faster than any single qualification can keep pace with. Lifelong learning is, therefore, not an optional extra. It is part of the economic infrastructure. The challenge is already stark. Young people from lower working-class backgrounds are more than twice as likely not to be in education, employment or training as those from professional backgrounds—it is 22%, compared with 9%. At the same time, Skills England says that demand for key occupations in priority sectors is expected to rise by nearly a quarter over the next decade, with particularly strong growth in the digital and engineering professions. Critically, it says that the education pipeline alone will not be enough. Significant reskilling of the existing workforce will be essential.
Artificial intelligence brings these two challenges together. The Government’s AI labour market research found that 35% of surveyed organisations struggled to fill AI roles. Government-commissioned vacancy analysis also found significant advertised salary premiums for AI skills. Yet in 2023, 60% of expert AI vacancies were advertised in London and the south-east. If the skills, opportunities and higher-value jobs remain concentrated in the same places, AI risks widening regional inequality rather than reducing it.
I welcome the Government’s building blocks—the AI skills boost, the level 4 AI and automation practitioner apprenticeship and the lifelong learning entitlement, supporting eligible courses and modular studies from January 2027. However, flexibility on paper does not necessarily mean access in practice. A learner in a deprived community may need a pathway from essential digital skills through applied training to an apprenticeship or modular higher education alongside meaningful work experience, careers advice and support with practical barriers. This is where FE colleges, employers and regional leaders can be powerful partners.
I welcome the Government’s commitment to reach disadvantaged young people through programmes such as TechFirst. Will the Minister ensure that this opportunity extends beyond schools into lifelong learning and that local skills improvement plans and devolved skills funding will open pathways into AI and emerging technology careers for disadvantaged communities? Will the Government publish the participation, completion and employment outcomes by deprivation and by region? If we do this, lifelong learning can be both a ladder of opportunity and an engine of regional growth.
Lord Young of Acton (Con)
My Lords, I too congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan, on arranging this debate. I declare an interest as the author, eight years ago, of a Centre for Policy Studies paper on technical education.
I acknowledge the work of my noble friend Lord Baker, who has done so much to set up vocational and technical schools—most of which have been a great success, but not all of which have been an unqualified success. Of the 58 UTCs that have opened since 2010, 14 have closed. Studio schools, which are also vocational and technical schools for 14 to 19 year-olds, have fared worse; 59 have opened since 2010, and at least 26 have closed. The problem is that some of these schools became dumping grounds for children that neighbouring comprehensives did not want because they were expected to do poorly in their GCSEs.
How can we stop technical and vocational education being seen as inferior to a more academic pathway? The answer is to grant these schools the ability to select according not to ability but to aptitude for the occupations for which they are designed to prepare children. The most successful occupational school in the country that admits under-16s is the BRIT School, a performing arts school in Croydon which admits children according to their abilities in the performing arts. Both Tom Holland and Adele are among its most successful alumni. That model has been replicated by Birmingham Ormiston Academy, and a second BRIT School has been approved to open next year in Bradford, as the noble Baroness, Lady Hazarika, said.
Overseas, the most successful technical and vocational schools also select for aptitude, from South Korea’s Meister schools, which place 93% of graduates directly into employment, to the selective vocational academies of New Jersey, which send pupils to Princeton, Yale and MIT. None of these systems treats technical education as a consolation prize for children who struggle with academic subjects. They treat aptitude for trade as no less real or worthy of cultivation than aptitude for science or maths. I recognise that any form of selection is controversial, but I am not proposing selection by ability, only by aptitude. Academies are already permitted to select up to 10% of their pupils for aptitude in particular specialisms, such as music.
Finally, no primary legislation is required to bring about this change. The Secretary of State already has this power, used for Birmingham Ormiston Academy, to grant a derogation allowing an academy, including UTCs and studio schools, to select by aptitude where there is a demonstrable local need. All that is required is the will to use it more widely. If the Minister, when she returns to her place, would like to learn more, I will happily send her a copy of my paper.
Lord Griffiths of Burry Port (Lab)
My Lords, I add my thanks to the noble Baroness both for introducing this debate and for snatching every single remark that I had carefully put together by way of a contribution to this debate. We will have to sort this out at dawn with pistols. It is a great privilege to hear the wisdom that has come from so many quarters in this debate. It gives me an opportunity to offer my thanks to and admiration of the noble Lord, Lord Harris, for all the work he has done, even given the qualifying remarks that we heard a moment ago, which has provided a platform over its longevity on which to build and develop some of the ideas that have been in play.
So here I am, likely to finish before three minutes. Since I think that is worth saying, I do say it. It also allows me to put in a personal word: since I came into your Lordships’ House—nearly a quarter of a century ago now—I have consistently had young teenagers on work experience in my office. They amount now to dozens. Also, a student, either an undergraduate or a postgraduate, has given me 10 hours a week of support with some aspects of my work. One is up there beavering away at the moment on something I will sign off when I go up there.
I mention this not to point to my own virtue but to say that I have become aware of the help that has been given to these young people when they apply for jobs and are able to say they have had some experience in Parliament. It may therefore be an obvious thing for us to say, but we can make our practical contribution to the solving of problems we have been sharing with each other this afternoon. So here I am. I will count the next 40 seconds as a credit on my next speech.
Baroness Nargund (Lab)
My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow my noble friend Lord Griffiths. I might finish before three minutes as well—I am not sure.
I congratulate my noble friend Lady Morgan on securing this very important debate and on her excellent opening speech. We have heard from so many noble Lords from across the House, highlighting different sectors and opportunities.
Skills, training, employment, health and regional growth are deeply interconnected. If we want to reduce regional inequalities, we must create opportunities for young people where they live. Today, nearly 1 million young people are NEET. Behind that statistic is an enormous reservoir of talent and potential that our country cannot afford to lose.
As a doctor who has served for nearly four decades in the National Health Service, I want to talk about how the National Health Service can help with skills, training, apprenticeships and employing young people who are not in education, employment or training—and, in doing so, support regional growth. We have two challenges: young people who need opportunities and a healthcare system in desperate need of a sustainable workforce. Why not bring them together? We often think of our National Health Service simply as a healthcare provider. We forget that it is the largest public sector employer, and in fact one of the largest employers in the country if we include all legal entities, with a distinct presence in virtually every community across our country. This gives our National Health Service a unique opportunity to become an anchor for skills, training, apprenticeships, employment and regional growth.
This should not be about finding young people any employment; it should be about giving them a career, a qualification, security and a future. A young person gaining skills and securing employment improves their income, independence and health. Their salaries are spent locally, growing the local economy, and communities retain talent so local productivity grows.
Furthermore, an NHS workforce drawn from the local communities it serves will understand the needs of that community, creating a win-win situation for regional growth and wealth. Therefore, I ask my noble friend the Minister: as the Government consider the solutions phase of the Milburn review, will they explore the NHS as an anchor for skills, training, apprenticeships, regional health and growth? The NHS has the potential to deliver a practical solution to the NEET crisis while delivering regional growth.
Baroness Sater (Con)
My Lords, I also thank the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan, for securing this important debate. I would like to raise two points today: financial literacy and careers guidance, which are part of the same conversation and can transform lives. We want young people to be career ready, but they also need to be financially ready. Young people today are growing up in an increasingly challenging financial world, so more than ever they need the confidence to make informed decisions.
I welcome the Government’s direction of travel in strengthening financial education in the national curriculum, as these life skills are important. Although financial education is statutory in primary and secondary education, it is not statutory in post-16 years. Many are urging the Government to embed it into the post-16 pathways. This is especially important when young people are faced with immediate financial decisions, such as wages and renting, for the first time. We need the right resources, more teacher training and curriculum time to ensure that good financial education reaches every child, regardless of where they live and at the right time in their lives.
My second point is about careers guidance in schools. We all welcome the focus on the need to get more young people into further education, apprenticeships, training and employment at 16, but there is an immediate need to do more to ensure that young people know what those opportunities are, where they can lead and how to get there. Some young people already have networks around them to explain different careers, arrange work experience or introduce them to an employer, but many disadvantaged young people do not.
Good careers guidance in schools can be a great equaliser. Ofsted’s 2023 review found that a third of schools reported poor staffing levels and high staff turnover affecting careers provision, while a quarter identified funding as a barrier. Careers departments need to be better resourced, and there must not be a postcode lottery.
The Library briefing makes an important point here: employers have highlighted a lack of workplace experience, confidence and work readiness among young people. Good career guidance has the power to address many of these issues. The Government’s careers guidance, updated in June 2026, cited evidence that high-quality careers provision is associated with around an 8% reduction in the likelihood of young people becoming NEET. The evidence suggests an even greater impact in schools serving the highest proportions of disadvantaged learners. The Library briefing also highlights that among 18 to 21 year-olds there is a 12.7 percentage point gap in participation in education and apprenticeships between disadvantaged young people and their peers.
Opportunity works only if young people have the knowledge, understanding and confidence to take it. If we are serious about social mobility, we must make sure that disadvantaged young people are not disadvantaged twice: first by their circumstances, then again by lacking the support and knowledge to navigate their future. Their future should be determined by their ambition and ability, not by the circumstances into which they are born.
Lord Liddle (Lab)
My Lords, like my noble friend Lord Griffiths of Burry Port, I find that the quality of this debate has left me with very little fresh or new to say. I want to emphasise some of the very important points that have come out in the debate. The first is that our basic school system still has a lot of improvement to make. The report from Teach First showed how children from free school meal backgrounds were pretty much doomed to failure in our system. Something has to be done, and that agenda of reform of schools has still to be pursued.
A lot of people have paid compliments to the Milburn review. It is one of the best documents of its kind that I have ever seen in my political experience. For those noble Lords who have the stamina, there is the debate on an ageing society tomorrow, which I am standing in to lead. We on your Lordships’ Economic Affairs Committee have come to the conclusion that we can afford an ageing society only if the employment participation rates of people over 50 are radically increased. That has all sorts of implications for how people develop their lives in education and how they can continue after the age of 50.
The other point I would like to emphasise is the one my noble friend Lord Barber made about the lack of consistency written into further education, apprenticeships and skills policies. We desperately need that consistency—the kind the noble Lord, Lord Baker, has shown at a personal level throughout the last 40 years or so of his life—in our politics and structures.
My final point is that we should not, as my noble friend Lady Morgan made very clear, see this debate as a choice between further and higher education. The expansion of universities, to which Prime Ministers Harold Wilson and Tony Blair both made an enormous contribution, has been one of the drivers of opportunity and social mobility in this country. We should never forget that, and we should never allow opponents on the right to make the argument that more means worse. It does not.
We have to develop ladders of opportunity between further and higher education, in which the universities have a key role to play. As my noble friend Lady Morris said, we cannot let degree apprenticeships be confined to a socially select few.
Lord Moynihan of Chelsea (Con)
My Lords, I too congratulate the noble Baroness on securing this debate. Although I did not agree with everything she said, I thought she made the most important contribution to this debate when she said that it does not really matter what kind of education you want to go on to or what kind of vocation you have: if you do not have numeracy and literacy, you are done for. Given my meagre three minutes, I will stick with that point—in particular because, apart from the noble Lord, Lord Addington, nobody has referred back to it. In this entire debate, full of good contributions, we are missing that key point.
If you grow up innumerate and illiterate, you cannot use a bank account or fill in a form: you are not capable of participating in our society as a fully functioning adult. Yet one in five children in this country leaves school functionally illiterate, innumerate or both. That number is probably increasing at this time, post-Covid, rather than diminishing.
Yet we know the solution. We have a real-life scientific test going on with the Gove reforms—in England, but not in Scotland and Wales. We have seen the Scotland and Wales results collapse, and the Gove reforms in England are taking us higher and higher in the PISA tables. That is despite the fact that approximately half the schools in this country have adamantly resisted imposing the Gove reforms, which are very straightforward—the imposition of phonics for literacy and Shanghai maths, or something similar, for numeracy.
All over, we get people saying that those reforms have not worked. But when we see them in their perfected way, at a school such as Michaela, where they have discipline, love, high expectations and a knowledge-rich approach, almost no children leave that school innumerate or illiterate. These are not selected children—40% of them come from free school meals backgrounds.
It can be done, including at the school my noble friend Lord Young founded. It is done all over this country, but in many schools, these reforms are not adopted. Why is that? Why are we allowing that? It starts here and it goes on to the colleges of education, and we have seen an appalling glimpse of it in the Jason Arday case. They are all keen on teaching about racism, white privilege and colonialism, and they never teach the knowledge-rich approach—Shanghai or phonics. Unless we all get together and face reality, we will have more children leaving school illiterate and innumerate.
Lord Whitty (Lab)
My Lords, as the last speaker, and having only three minutes, although I would dearly love to contend with what the noble Lord has just said, I will not do so. I also will not comment on the many speeches that have been made, many of which I agree with.
For far too long, one’s educational qualifications at 18—or lack of them—have determined not only what happens to you when you join the workforce but how your whole career develops. We need to alter that.
I will not comment in detail on the various speeches that have been made, and I have dropped my own detailed points. I just make this point, which is as much of a problem for the Prime Minister and the Treasury as it is for Education Ministers and those in the education system. Employment is not seen as one of the key strategies for government, either in the Treasury or Whitehall. We have a department of employment that is to some extent lost within a department that is largely concerned with the details and expenditure of welfare. We need a proper department of employment that covers training skills for the future, as well as the education system, further education and the interface with higher education.
Until we get that, we are not going to get delivery of a proper strategy. We will get details we can improve, but the strategy needs to be accepted by senior Ministers in this and future Governments. For a long time, employment has not been one of the top priorities and has become a poor relation, despite the incredible efforts by many in the education and training system to improve the situation.
As Alan Milburn’s report points out, we have not been short of interventions by government over the past few years. There has been scheme after scheme to improve the situation, and we are going to get a few more. What has been lacking is a strategy and a priority. The lead for that can come only from the top. The machinery of government needs to reflect that, and only then will we gain the respect for all aspects of employment and training that is needed. I do not see the signs, as yet, that we, as the present Government, have fully addressed this. We have the opportunity to do so, and I think the priority is there and has been laid out in many interventions today. It is time that we ensured that the machinery of government reflects the centrality of employment in defining our lives, the quality of our lives and the sense of self which applies to so many people. Until that happens, we are going to have this debate time and again.
Lord Mohammed of Tinsley (LD)
My Lords, I join noble Lords in thanking the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan, for initiating this important debate and I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in it. What has come through is very clear: this is not simply a debate around qualifications. This has been a debate around opportunity, social mobility and economic growth. The central question for me is this: how do we ensure that every young person, whatever their background or postcode, has a genuine route to meaningful work, as we heard earlier, further education or a secure future and do not—as many noble Lords mentioned, in particular the noble Baroness, Lady Alexander—become NEET with all the issues that Alan Milburn has identified? We look forward to his second report.
For too long, the education system has presented universities as the default measure of ambition while vocational education has too often been treated as second best. University is absolutely the right choice for many young people, but it should not be the only route to success. We have heard that clearly in the debate today. A young person who wants to become an engineer, an electrician, a technician, a care professional or a builder should be able to pursue that ambition through a high-quality technical or vocational route and have the same status and respect as someone pursuing an academic degree. That is why I remain attracted to the dual system model that combines classroom learning with sustained structural workplace experience.
We can learn from other countries such as Germany and the Netherlands, as we heard from the noble Lord, Lord Baker, at the start of the debate. Their vocational system demonstrates the value of giving young people both theoretical knowledge and practical competence. That additional workplace experience matters. We heard from the noble Lord, Lord Griffiths, about some of us practising what we preach by giving young people the opportunity to shadow us. I have had one young person, Louie Xenos, shadowing me this week and she is watching the debate. She helped to formulate not only this speech but my Oral Question. It is important that we create work experience opportunities for young people and then go out and advocate for them within industry because, too often, young people are told that they lack experience when the very businesses employing them are the ones that do not give them the opportunity to gain that experience. How can we tell a young person that they need experience when we have failed to give them that opportunity, as I mentioned earlier?
No vocational system will succeed unless employers are properly incentivised to participate. I would like to see strong incentives for employers to recruit young people facing the greatest barriers, including care leavers, young people with SEND and those who have experienced alternative provision. Young people furthest from the labour market—I note the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Morris of Yardley, about white working-class young people—cannot be those least likely to receive their first opportunity. We must look into the findings of that report and see how we can help that cohort of young people.
We also need to move away from a culture of short-term recruitment and low retention. Training should be seen as an investment in people and in the future workforce rather than as a simple cost. That is why I support greater flexibility in the growth and skills levy. As we heard from the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan, at the beginning of the debate, small and medium-sized businesses, in particular, need a system that allows them to use training and support for the skills their workforce and the local economy generally require.
If we want vocational education to succeed, as we heard from many noble Lords, we must also fund further education properly. As my noble friend Lady Garden said, further education colleges often work with young people who have the greatest need, yet they continue to face significant financial pressures. We should extend pupil premium-style support into post-16 education so that disadvantage does not stop counting when a young person leaves school. They still have those needs. We must also ensure that FE colleges are treated fairly financially, including through the ability to reclaim VAT so that they are not placed at a disadvantage with sixth forms. We should also encourage partnerships rather than competition between institutions. Collaboration between universities and FE colleges can open opportunities that neither can provide alone.
We should also recognise that education does not end at 21. People change careers. People lose their jobs. They may become carers. Industries may disappear, and new industries emerge. That is why lifelong learning matters. The lifelong learning entitlement has the potential to give adults greater opportunities to retrain and upskill, but lifelong learning must mean more than lifelong borrowing. People from disadvantaged backgrounds must be able to access opportunities without financial barriers preventing them participating.
We also cannot seriously address young people being outside education or employment without addressing mental health and other barriers. For some young people, the problem is not a lack of ambition. It may be poor mental health, disability, caring responsibilities, poverty, lack of confidence, or simply not having anyone to help them navigate the complicated system, as we heard earlier about career services in schools. That is why organisations such as the Duke of Edinburgh’s Award are so valuable. Volunteering, physical activity, developing practical skills and working as part of a team can build confidence, resilience, leadership and well-being. Those opportunities are particularly important for young people who may not have the same networks or advantages as their peers.
Finally, I want to turn to regional growth and devolution. The skills needs of a place like Sheffield, where I am from, are not identical to those of Manchester, Cornwall or London. In South Yorkshire we need to think about advanced manufacturing, engineering, construction, clean energy and the future of our steel industry. Others may have other priorities. The people who understand those needs best are the ones that are closest—the local employers, colleges, universities, councils and combined authorities. I therefore welcome the direction of travel towards greater regional decision-making that we have heard from the Prime Minister. But devolution must mean real power, real resources and real accountability. We should not simply devolve responsibility while keeping the important decisions and funding in Whitehall.
There is a danger that we focus on qualifications, structures and funding mechanisms and forget the individual young person at the centre of them—the young person who leaves school without the grades expected of them; the care leaver navigating adulthood without a stable family network; the young person with SEND who wants to work but needs the right support; the adult who needs to retrain because the industry they have worked in for years is changing. They do not simply need more choices on paper; they need a route that actually works.
From these Benches, I make five simple demands. First, to give vocational education the status it deserves; secondly, to make further education a genuine pillar of our education system; thirdly, to give employers the incentives and flexibility to create meaningful training and employment opportunities, particularly for those facing disadvantage; fourthly, to integrate skills with mental health, employment and wider support, because people’s lives do not fit neatly into departmental boundaries; and finally, to devolve power and funding so that regions can build the skills systems their economies and communities actually need.
Opportunity should not depend on postcodes, as we heard from the noble Baroness, Lady Fraser, and others; nor should ambition be defined by whether someone chooses a university lecture theatre or a workshop floor. A successful education system recognises talent wherever it exists, gives people the skills they need to use their talent, and gives them a genuine opportunity to succeed. That is the education and skills system we should all aspire to build.
Baroness Cash (Con)
My Lords, my congratulations to the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan of Huyton, on securing this excellent debate and my thanks to noble colleagues for their contributions. I am struck yet again by the level of expertise we have in this House and the value that brings when we are talking about such important matters. I have also been saved from many of the points I planned to make by hearing from the noble Baronesses, Lady Morgan and Lady Morris, the noble Lord, Lord Baker, and many other colleagues. The best use of time, therefore, is to focus instead on two things I would like to address specifically.
A number of people have referred to the fact—indeed, the review the noble Baronesses have overseen talked about this—that skills do not begin at 14 or 16. These are life skills, and they begin from the very early years. Many noble Lords are aware that this is a passion of mine, and I cannot resist the temptation to address it on this occasion. The very first skills anyone learns are motor skills, speech, relational skills, emotional regulation, and the capacity to learn itself. According to this year’s survey of over 1,000 reception teachers, one in four children started school not toilet trained. Three in 10 could not tell a teacher they were hungry, frightened or needed the toilet. A third could not dress themselves. Many cannot hold a pencil or sit up on the carpet because they do not have the strength built by running, climbing or play. It is beyond tragic. A third, when handed a book, swiped the page as if it were a screen. Reception staff lose two and a half hours of teaching every day helping children catch up.
Last September, 37% arrived not ready, up from 33% the year before. The sharpest regional declines are in the north-east, the West Midlands, the north-west and London. When a peer-reviewed study was done following 8,000 Bradford children for 12 years, those not school ready at four were nearly three times as likely to be out of education, employment and training at 16.
A number of noble Peers today have talked about this being a decade of work. It is a lifetime of work, and it is urgent. Before we even begin to address the skills, the vocational training and the higher and further education issues that so many others have raised today, we need to start urgently to catch these babies and infants at the very beginning of their lives. If we do not, undoing the damage will be too difficult and their chances will already be harmed.
There is hope. In the same survey, 94% of parents wanted national guidance on readiness, and 88% of them believed their own child was ready—but the teachers had that number at only 63%. So there is a gap of parenting knowledge that we cannot and should not neglect.
I know the Minister is looking at all this, and she is aware of my support with everything she is doing in this area. However, I hope she will forgive me if I press further and harder on what else we could be doing and what the Government, in my view, must do. In 2004, Stoke-on-Trent found 64% of its children starting nursery with delayed language. It trained 5,000 practitioners and parents in early attachment and language, and delay fell markedly. Parent Gym, the programme that I founded, a six-week parenting course, was evaluated by the University of Warwick. It found large gains in parents’ confidence in skills at the end of just six weeks, which delivered outcomes in the primary schools that ran it.
The Government’s milestone is 75% school ready by 2028, and there is no time to waste. Once these years are gone, it cannot be undone. Where is the plan for how the definition of school readiness is to be communicated to every new parent? Where are the system and the measures for assessing that progress? I hope the Minister can tell us when we are going to see a national information campaign about what screens are doing to the developing brains of these babies? From infancy they are being sat in front of screens, which is impeding their life chances.
The other thing I want to talk about very quickly, with time running out, is work readiness. Again, the skills that are needed—soft skills, behavioural skills and experience—are crucial, and many noble Peers today have raised this in their contributions. We have to provide the work experience that has gone from young people. The number of teenagers who now work during the time when they are studying has fallen off a cliff since the 1990s. This has been happening gradually over time; it has halved. The self-esteem and confidence built by earning, turning up, getting paid and seeing the result of your efforts have gone. As the mother of a 16 year-old, I know that it has been impossible for her, despite all her best efforts, to find any summer jobs over the last couple of years.
This country is spending £25 supporting a young person on benefits for every £1 helping them into work. The answer to that arithmetic is not better managed dependency. It is a good start to see in the Milburn recommendations the subsidising of work placements and work experience, but we need to do more.
I am grateful to a number of noble Peers today for raising the AI issue, which is at the heart of some of the issues around employment and jobs. The change is happening so rapidly. Young people need to have soft skills and executive functioning skills, as we talk about it now in SEN—knowing how to organise themselves and how to show up punctually. We take these things for granted, but for the Covid generation these are missing. We need to think about what we do in classrooms, whether in schools or in further education, to equip young people to go into the workplace and thrive.
I am very grateful to so many noble Lords for their contributions, but I single out the noble Lord, Lord Lingfield, for his reference to the cadet programme. It is a shame, I always feel, that government has to be run by departments simply because it is so vast, but when we think about our defence needs and the changing face of defence—the fact that it is going to become more technical and home-based, and the fact that we need security in our own borders—we need to think more strategically about mapping and encouraging the jobs that we need for the future. Encouraging young people to take up places with the cadets is just one example of what can be done.
I am very grateful also for the reference today to language skills—an increasingly important issue as we become an ever more diverse and inclusive society. It must be vital for children, to be able to participate in their community, to have those language skills.
Finally, I believe it was the noble Baroness, Lady Morris, but also the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan, in her opening speech, who said how important numeracy and literacy are as the foundation stones of all this. It was with a little alarm that I heard the new Prime Minister on Tuesday talking about some of the changes he is proposing. I flag my alarm that I hope he is not intending to rip up the foundation stones of what has been a significantly improving education system in England during the last 20 years, through both Labour and Conservative Governments—work to which the Minister herself contributed. There is a lot more to be said, but time is ticking and I am determined not to get another warning from our Whip.
The Minister of State, Department for Education and Department for Work and Pensions (Baroness Smith of Malvern) (Lab)
My Lords, as others have rightly done, I thank my noble friend Lady Morgan for securing this important debate, which has ranged widely. I will do my very best to respond to the range of points that have been raised and to receive written representations from anybody who wants to send them—as I believe the noble Lord, Lord Young, promised to do when I took a little comfort break earlier.
As others have said, the breadth of expertise that has been shared today shows that improving opportunity is not the responsibility of government alone; it is a national endeavour. This debate goes to the heart of how we build a fairer and more prosperous country. It is about whether every young person, whatever their background or postcode, can gain the skills, confidence and opportunities they need to succeed, and whether every region has the skilled workforce it needs to grow, attract investment and create good jobs.
The issues before us are clear. Too many young people remain outside education, employment or training. Too many adults lack access to flexible routes to upskill or retrain. Too many employers report skills shortages, while too many communities still feel cut off from the opportunities that growth should bring. That is why skills and technical and further education matter so profoundly. They are not peripheral to our economic strategy or our mission to break down barriers to opportunity; they are central to both.
The debate is therefore about how government, local leaders, employers, colleges, universities and communities work together to make technical and vocational routes more respected, more responsive and more accessible. If we are serious about widening opportunity and driving growth in every part of our country, we must also be serious about where power sits and who is trusted to use it. As the noble Lord, Lord Mohammed, emphasised, there is an important argument for ensuring that power rests with those closest to making the decisions. That is why I want to begin with devolution, which is a practical answer to a practical challenge when we are thinking about how we build a skills system that reflects the needs, strengths and ambitions of the places it serves.
As several noble Lords have noted, opportunity is not distributed evenly across our country and employer demand is not identical from one region to another—a point made by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Coventry—and the barriers facing a young person in one community may look very different from those facing a young person elsewhere. Local leaders know their labour markets, employers, colleges, communities and young people, and this Government believe that they should have the powers, funding and accountability to act on that knowledge within a national framework that protects quality, entitlement and access. Our approach is clear: shift power away from Westminster, strengthen strategic authorities and build a skills system that is more responsive to local economic need while staying aligned with the national priorities that matter to us all.
Noble Lords have also been clear about the scale of that challenge, with almost 1 million young people not in education, employment or training. These figures are not abstract. They represent young lives and talent we cannot afford to waste. That is why we commissioned Alan Milburn to produce what is an excellent interim report. We look forward to receiving his final report with recommendations. We are already working to ensure that we will be able to respond effectively to the recommendations and believe we will be building on progress and action already taken.
I reassure my noble friend Lady Morgan and my noble friend Lady Morris, who should be congratulated on the leadership she showed in the white working-class inquiry, that we will want to respond to those issues together. We must ensure that where a young person grows up does not determine what they can become. It is about how we ensure that talented people, wherever they live and whatever their background, can gain the knowledge, confidence and qualifications needed to succeed.
Another theme raised by many noble Lords has been the importance of prevention and early intervention. We know that young people who become detached from education or employment often face multiple and overlapping barriers. These can include disadvantage, low attainment, special educational needs, poor mental health, family circumstances and limited local opportunities. They can affect different groups differently, as my noble friend Lady Whitaker, with her usual tenacity, identified with respect to Gypsy, Roma and Traveller children.
We know that the consequences can be long lasting and that is why this Government are placing increasing emphasis on prevention, earlier identification, stronger transitions and more co-ordinated support. We are improving how schools, colleges, local authorities and partners identify young people at risk of disengagement. We are strengthening post-16 pathways, introducing new technical pathways from age 14, and investing in better data and support systems so that fewer young people fall through the cracks. The noble Baroness, Lady Cash, is right that this starts early and that is why we are improving the quantity and quality of early years provision, tackling child poverty and improving, through our support for families and better start in life information, support and information for parents as well.
The noble Lord, Lord Whitty, argued that there should be machinery of government changes to put skills, training and education at the heart of government. I now straddle the Department for Education and the Department for Work and Pensions following the most recent machinery of government change, which puts skills alongside employment support in the Department for Work and Pensions. I think that was an important change.
It has led us to the development of the youth guarantee, which reflects the principles we have been talking about that every young person should have a pathway forward, whether through further learning, training, work experience and apprenticeship, or employment support. We are investing an additional £2.5 billion over the next three years into that and the growth and skills levy to support almost 1 million young people and to create up to 500,000 opportunities to earn and learn. In response to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Leicester, I can say that there are 300,000 work experience places through the youth guarantee, specifically.
I turn to further education. Many noble Lords have rightly emphasised the critical role that further education colleges play. They are anchors within their communities. They support young people, adults, career changers and employers, drive social mobility and connect education directly to the needs of local economies. My noble friend Lady Morgan described the excellent work happening in Wigan. Every time I visit excellent FE colleges, I see staff and leaders engaged with the local economy, building its input into the curriculum and building links back to their students; this is at the heart of their success. But too often they have been left behind. My noble friend Lord Barber emphasised the need for high-quality teaching, which has been harder for FE to deliver, given its vacancy rates and the lack of investment it faces.
That is why this Government are investing in the FE workforce and strengthening the sector’s foundation, including by providing around £120 million in 2026 to support colleges and other FE providers to address recruitment and retention needs, rising to £365 million next year. It is why we have increased the basic funding of FE and supported, in particular, further disadvantage funding, uplifts for T-levels and an inclusive mainstream fund to help those settings meet more special educational and disability needs.
Many noble Lords have rightly emphasised the need to raise the status of technical and vocational education. For too long, public debate has treated academic and technical routes as though one were superior to the other. We want technical excellence to command the same respect as academic achievement, and technical education to be seen not as a second choice but as an excellent choice. I also support the argument made by my noble friends, my noble friend Lady Morgan in particular, that high-quality technical and vocational education is not only about engaging students and is not only for those who would otherwise be disengaged; it should be for everybody who wants to achieve excellence, but via a technical and vocational route. It is important that we keep that at the heart of our ambition and the changes we are making.
That is why the Prime Minister has announced new prestigious technical education routes, giving 14 year-olds earlier access to technical skills, work experience and local employers. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Baker, has noted the emphasis from 14 that the new Prime Minister has brought in. I note the noble Lord’s strong emphasis, once again, on the opportunities that UTC sleeves may well provide in delivering this. But rather than relying on a one-size-fits-all model for delivering this new approach designed by Whitehall, regional mayors, local leaders, schools, colleges and employers will shape pathways around local industries and growth sectors, from advanced manufacturing, AI and digital technology to clean energy, life sciences, construction, health and care, and the creative industries. These changes build on our existing reforms, which demonstrate both the urgency and the ambition.
With respect to the point about English and maths, I strongly agree that the literacy and numeracy skills that you need throughout life, often represented by a grade 4 at GCSE, are fundamentally important. That is why we are determined, with all the reforms that we are making pre 16, to strengthen the ability of children to get those qualifications and, post 16, to make sure that the system is focused not on a churn of resits but on the quality of teaching, professional development and the evidence of what works to enable young people to succeed if they have not up to that point. It is why we will also introduce a new level 1 stepping-stone qualification to enable young people to build the foundations they need in English and maths if they have not been successful in doing that previously.
Equally, it is important that we emphasise the specialism and the contribution of FE colleges, which is why we have developed 29 new technical excellence colleges, including the 19 announced this year that are backed by £175 million, giving around 65,000 learners access to training for high-demand jobs in advanced manufacturing, clean energy, defence, digital and technologies. That builds on the first wave of construction technical excellence colleges, supported by £120 million of investment, which will train 40,000 construction learners by 2029. Together, that is a practical example of skills policy being tied directly to the industries and places where growth will come from, and it is an investment in the capacity and ability of further education colleges to work alongside those industries to provide opportunities for young people and the skills the country needs.
As I have already said, I strongly support the points made by my noble friends Lady Morris and Lady Morgan about the rigour and quality that we must maintain in technical and vocational education. It should not be seen as a second-rate or alternative route for those who do not want or are not able to take an academic route. It must of itself be a prestigious, high-quality and rigorous route, and access to that quality must be open as widely as possible. I take the points made about level 6 apprenticeships, for example, which are offering brilliant opportunities for students but are not currently widely accessible enough to those from disadvantaged backgrounds.
It is also the case that young people need a broader range of enrichment and experience, as several noble Lords have identified. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Leicester talked about the need for work experience, as I have said, and the role of volunteering in contributing to the sorts of experiences that are important for young people. The noble Lord, Lord Lingfield, rightly identified the benefits that cadets can bring. Others identified important ways in which we need to support young people to progress. I note as well the point, made by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Coventry, about young people who might arrive at 16 without having had the opportunity to achieve up to that point. That is one of the reasons we are changing the qualifications and the routes for young people—what we would call level 2 post-16—to provide new pathways through an occupational route into jobs and a further study route into the ability to study level 3 qualifications. We cannot let young people lose the opportunities that jobs or further study could offer them.
As she often does, my noble friend Lady Caine made a powerful case for creativity across the curriculum and throughout the age ranges. She challenged, as she often does. In a Question on Monday, we will have an opportunity to talk about support for higher education in creativity. We rightly heard from the noble Baroness, Lady Fraser, about the need to ensure routes into dance. This Government have continued to support the music and dance scheme, and I hear the calls for certainty around that. My noble friend Lady Hazarika spoke on the enthusiasm, the opportunities, the enrichment and joy that the study of music can bring, and the need to continue the work that we are doing on financial literacy was emphasised by the noble Baroness, Lady Sater.
Several noble Lords highlighted apprenticeships and their powerful role in supporting young people into work and on the path to successful careers. That is why we are investing in them and reversing the sharp decline in apprenticeship starts among young people which we have seen over the last decade. There is an additional £1 billion investment to support 50,000 more young people into apprenticeships over the next three years. My noble friend Lady Alexander noted the ambitious plans that the Government have and rightly identified our need to make it as simple, easy and straightforward as possible for employers to take on apprentices. We have made progress in that area already, and we will keep pushing to make sure that that is the case. To support employers, we will also develop brokerage opportunities locally—as was suggested by my noble friend Lady Morgan; we are piloting them already—to bring together employers and apprentices.
An important point was made about the role of higher education. I see—not just because of my job—the system as a tertiary system where opportunities need to work through further education and higher education. Of course, it is the case that very many of the skills that our economy needs will be provided through higher education, not just through an earlier route. That is why we need higher education to provide more opportunities for apprenticeships and to work effectively with further education to develop the level 4 and 5 qualifications that we need in this country. The Government have set out our target to increase the number of young people achieving level 4 and above qualifications.
My noble friend Lord Docherty raised adult education, and several noble Lords talked about the need for education to be lifelong. I strongly support that. My noble friend is right that the funding for adult skills has fallen since 2010. Within the constraints that we face, we will try at the very least to maintain the support that is there, because it is so important for reskilling people, getting people back close to the labour market, helping people who have no English and maths to take up their entitlements to that, and supporting speakers of other languages with English—which is one of the things that the adult skills fund supports. The adult skills fund is devolved to make sure that it will be as effective as possible. My noble friend Lord Nagaraju, quite rightly, talked about the need for reskilling and the emphasis on AI, and made the point that that needs to be open to encourage the widest possible participation.
In closing, I thank all noble Lords for their contributions. The points raised today will inform our work to build a skills system that is ambitious, inclusive and responsive; one that empowers local leaders, supports disadvantaged communities, strengthens regional growth and ensures that talent, determination and hard work are rewarded wherever they are found. I commend the Government’s approach to the House.
Baroness Morgan of Huyton (Lab)
Very briefly, I thank everybody who has taken part in the debate. I said at the beginning that I hoped we would not have a fuzzy conversation, and we very clearly did not have that. I think the Minister heard a lot of commitment and enthusiasm around the House. We heard that from her too, for which I thank her very much, as I do for the detail with which answered the points made. I was very struck by the noble Lord, Lord Baker, noting that it has been 16 years since we talked about this properly. I suspect that it will not take another 16 years until we do this again. Thank you very much.
Representation of the People Bill
Parcel Delivery Services
(1 day, 7 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Pack
To ask His Majesty’s Government what plans they have to improve the quality and reliability of parcel delivery services, particularly in relation to their impact on small businesses and vulnerable consumers.
Lord Pack (LD)
My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper. In so doing, I particularly welcome the noble Lord, Lord Sarwar, whose maiden speech I look forward to hearing in this debate. I hope that a short Lib Dem-initiated debate about parcels, if not perhaps the realisation of a long-standing dream item on the noble Lord’s bucket list, will at least provide a congenial forum for his debut. I am sure he will rise admirably to the challenge of the very rapid turnaround between his introduction and maiden speech.
Parcel deliveries are a central part of modern life. They can bring fun and joy to our lives, such as with a well-timed gift. But they are also essential for our economy, both for sales and for supply chains. They are essential for health too, with many being dependent on parcel deliveries to receive medicines and other health assistance. They give a vital lifeline to the wider world for those who are greatly restricted in their mobility. Yet, the state of the parcel delivery sector is, in some key respects, far from happy. Citizens Advice estimates that 15 million people suffered a problem with their most recent parcel delivery.
The 2025 Parcel Theft Report estimates that nearly five million homes were affected in a year by parcel theft, with over £650 million-worth of goods being stolen. I recently found one such stolen package dumped near my own home, presumably because the thieves had discovered that it contained a very large bottle of vinegar and nothing else. I was able to reunite the vinegar with its owner, but of course most victims of theft are not nearly so lucky. What is more, these problems have all the greater impact on those who are less mobile, who are therefore all the more dependent on parcels arriving on time and in the right place.
So up against all this, what is Ofcom, the regulator, doing? Not enough. What have the Government done in their recently signed-off statement of strategic priorities for Ofcom? Again, not enough. Unfortunately, prior to the summer, the Government did not find time to debate my regret Motion on that Ofcom strategy. I hope today’s debate will re-focus attention on it, particularly as Ofcom’s own data shows that, of those who contacted a delivery company about an issue, only 45%—less than half—were satisfied with the outcome. Of course, not everyone will be happy in such cases, but the Institute of Customer Service finds that, on average, 63% of people are satisfied with complaint-handling. So, with all due caution about definitions in each case not being exactly the same, it is fair to say that not only do you have less than a 50:50 chance of coming out satisfied if you raise an issue with a delivery firm, but the sector’s overall performance is well below that of other sectors.
Ofcom’s data does show that the 45% figure is up one percentage point on the previous year, but that pace of improvement means it would take 18 years for the sector merely to get to the average. Despite being 18 years off merely getting to average, Ofcom’s own commentary, published alongside this data, imparts no real sense of concern or urgency. The Government’s strategy statement merely gives a “welcome” to Ofcom’s approach, along with the suggestion that Ofcom
“should take enforcement action where it considers it appropriate”.
Given that we are never going to call for inappropriate enforcement, that is about as tepid a form of words as we can get.
There is a further reason why Ofcom’s approach is problematic: its requirements for complaints processes are poorly specified and, judging by people’s experiences, not properly followed by parcel delivery firms themselves. The specification problem is that Ofcom requires complaints processes for the sender and the addressee, yet you are neither if you have someone else’s parcel dumped on you. You are neither if you see bad driving or atrocious parking from one of the parcel delivery firms. In fact, these problems will get worse. The Government’s strategy for Ofcom rightly encourages experiments with drones and robot delivery of parcels. But what if a robot heading to someone else’s home crashes into you on the pavement? What if a drone, flying to deliver a parcel somewhere else, crashes into your garden? You are neither the sender nor the addressee, so Ofcom says that there is no need for an adequate complaints process that you can have recourse to.
Now, you might think that delivery firms are happy to accept complaints anyway in such circumstances, but outside of Royal Mail, which has its own regulatory structure, that is not my experience, nor that of many people I have spoken to. Worse, there is also the widespread experience that, even if you are the addressee, but you have, say, bought something from an online shop and are therefore not the parcel delivery firm’s customer—the online shop is the customer—the parcel delivery firms will say, “No, you can’t complain to us”, even though Ofcom’s rules say you should be able to.
Perhaps most strikingly, the website for InPost—one of the largest delivery firms—which I checked again last night, explicitly says:
“Where you have ordered our Services through a retailer or other third party, all queries and complaints should be raised with them directly. Their complaints process will apply.”
But that is not what Ofcom’s rules say it is allowed to do. So the complaints process is broken: the regulators’ rules are too narrow and do not appear to be being properly enforced. Moreover, when the Government signed off the strategy for Ofcom—admittedly, before the Minister took up his post—they did not say that things need to get better.
Nor are market forces the remedy here, unfortunately, because the operation of market forces is hindered by obscurity. You may have a delivery firm that you particularly wish to avoid—I certainly have my own shortlist. You may have one that you are particularly keen to reward with your business; perhaps you are a great fan of Royal Mail, for example. However, there are no transparency requirements—there is no transparency good practice—for the firm you order from to tell you who it will use to deliver your goods to you. The potential of consumer power is deliberately hindered by obscurity. Again, the reaction from both Ofcom and the Government in their strategy statement has been to say, in effect, “We are happy with the status quo”, rather than to push for transparency and change.
In conclusion, we have the problems for the victims of widespread crime; the problems for businesses having to shoulder the costs of those crimes; the problems of a complaints system 18 years away from even getting to average; and the problems of a complaints system that is flawed by design and implementation. It is fair to say that the Ofcom strategy statement was a missed opportunity for the Government to be tough on crime, to promote growth and to help people. Perhaps, however, the cavalry has arrived. A new Minister certainly has arrived, and a maiden speech is about to arrive. Of course, I acknowledge that some of the detail I have raised may best be addressed in a follow-up meeting or correspondence. I hope too, perhaps, that we will hear from the Minister a commitment to have a renewed look at these issues, because they certainly need looking at again.
Lord Mott (Con)
My Lords, I start by thanking the noble Lord, Lord Pack, for securing this debate. I also welcome the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Sarwar, and congratulate him on being introduced to your Lordships’ House today and on making his maiden speech from the Dispatch Box. I know what that feels like. The Chief Whip gave me a week between my introduction and having to make my maiden speech from the Dispatch Box. I noticed that today, the Government Chief Whip has simply given the noble Lord a slightly longer lunch break to prepare. I look forward to hearing his speech and wish him a long career in government.
I was slightly unsure today what I would talk about in this debate, and I decided to do a little bit of research at home in preparation. I used my wife and my eldest daughter to get a sense of how effective parcel delivery services are in this country. I must say that, in west London, they are incredibly effective. Parcels regularly arrive on time, and there are very few problems. Later in my speech I will come on to digital tech and how that interacts with people. I also want to pay tribute to the Passport Office, which I recently had to use to renew my passport. All the way through that process, the tech, the parcel delivery and the communication between the office and me was really quite extraordinary.
I declare at this stage that I am a member of the Public Services Select Committee. Three years ago, the committee carried out an inquiry into homecare medicine. It was an extraordinary inquiry, which started quite small but began to uncover real differences across the whole of the United Kingdom in the delivery of medicines. That is why we need to focus on this and work incredibly hard.
Parcel delivery has become an essential part of how we live and how business operates. For many small businesses, the parcel is not simply the final step in a transaction; it is the transaction. Reliability matters enormously, and the evidence suggests that there is still considerable room for improvement. Ofcom found that, while 78% of consumers were genuinely satisfied with parcel services, 68% had experienced a delivery problem in the previous six months.
When something does go wrong, resolving it can be almost as frustrating. Some 47% of those who experienced a delivery problem then encountered further difficulties trying to resolve it. For small businesses, that can mean additional costs, lost time and potentially a lost customer. For vulnerable customers, it could mean a lost medicine that is essential to that individual’s health. The evidence shows that those with an impacting or limiting condition are more likely to experience problems with deliveries. Accessibility remains one of the weaker parts of the customer experience.
We should be careful about assuming that a more digital service is necessarily a more accessible one. Technology should make services easier to use, as in the example I gave at the beginning of my speech of the Passport Office. It should not create another barrier when something goes wrong. Therefore, when we assess whether the system is working, we should be looking not only at overall delivery performance but at whether it is working for those customers who have fewer alternatives when it fails.
I believe in a vibrant private sector, so the Government should not be dictating a business’s operations for it, but they do have a role in protecting consumers, setting standards and ensuring accountability. We already have substantial data, an independent regulator, enforcement powers and improvement plans, as the noble Lord, Lord Pack, highlighted in his opening remarks. I would like to see a clearer test of whether those interventions are working. I therefore ask the Government to set out a clear timetable for assessing the effectiveness of Ofcom’s current approach, including how it will compare performance and customer outcomes across all providers, and a commitment to review the regulatory framework if it is not delivering sustained improvement.
Royal Mail provides a particularly clear test, given its specific quality of service obligations and the improvement plan now in place. However, the principle should apply across the wider parcel market. That would not mean imposing identical obligations on every operator; it would mean making sure that we can identify where intervention is working, where it is not and changing course when the evidence demands it.
In responding to the debate, will the Minister set out how the Government intend to assess whether Ofcom’s current approach is delivering sustained improvement across the parcel market? Given the Business and Trade Committee’s recommendation for a regulatory reset, will he set out what would cause the Government to conclude that the existing regulatory approach is no longer delivering the improvement that consumers and businesses reasonably expect? Competition is valuable, but precisely because it should deliver better services, innovation and choice. For the small businesses waiting for their goods to arrive and for the vulnerable customer who needs to know that their needs will be understood, the test is ultimately very simple: can they trust the system to work?
Lord Redwood (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful for the opportunity to intervene in this debate, owing to the general lack of interest, but it is a pity because this is an important subject. I agree with the two former speakers that, when the service lets people down, it can be very damaging to their businesses or lives. If drugs do not arrive on time or a company needs an urgent supply for its production process and it does not arrive, these are very disruptive events.
I welcome the new Minister to his post. It is in all our interests that Ministers feel happy in their job and are positive about what they can do. He will be relieved to know that I will not blame him for anything today because he needs the opportunity to read his way in. However, I will raise one or two more general points in relation to postal services and other public services, as we on this side of the House try to get used to a Government under new leadership. We have read or listened to the Prime Minister’s speeches very carefully and we wonder whether there is going to be change for the good as a result of the new devices that the Prime Minister is introducing.
The postal services market is competitive, and I am pleased to say that my own personal experience has been extremely good. Deliveries have been swift, prompt and accurate, and I am very grateful to the variety of carriers that have made that possible.
I hear in the criticisms that there is a very serious worry about theft. This is of course a matter for criminal law enforcement, where the Government, through the Home Office, police forces, police commissioners and local government, can have a role. It would obviously be good if there was a way to ensure that fewer of those parcels were lifted from doorsteps.
However, it is also the case that all of us customers can do things to help ourselves. Obviously those of us who are busy may not be at home to receive the parcel when it arrives, although the safest thing is to be at home to receive the parcel yourself. It is probably a good idea to have an alternative safe place where you can ask them to put the parcel, and most online services now give you the right to specify some place out of sight, or even under lock and key, where you could receive the parcel to avoid theft. Those who do not have that kind of equipment or money may well have a friendly neighbour who would be in to take the parcel, so you can volunteer their address. In that way some self-help could supplement the competitive market, which is clearly driving prices down for quite a lot of carriage and, on the whole, for people like me and many others here, is delivering a pretty good service.
However, what fascinates me about the changes that the new leadership of the Government are introducing are matters of process—the theory that areas of service in a competitive market such as postal services may not be good enough and that a bigger government involvement would in some way be helpful to achieve those higher standards.
As we hear, the Prime Minister thinks he has at least two major options in his toolkit. There is full nationalisation, which he seems to favour, where he thinks a nationalised service would be better than a private competitive market. That is not my experience, and certainly there were lots of troubles when the postal side of the Post Office, as it was then, was fully nationalised, and of course it was only the Royal Mail services which were privatised. Therefore we can contrast the experience of the privatised mail services with the results of the nationalised industry, the Post Office.
Is that my time limit? Then I complete my remarks.
The Earl of Effingham (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Pack, for securing this important debate and I look forward with great interest to hearing the maiden speech of the noble Lord, Lord Sarwar. It is right that we reflect on the mounting issues within this country’s national postal service and highlight the potential solutions. I will be brief, and I appreciate the opportunity to speak in the gap.
Royal Mail has been hit hard by the impact of the Government’s tax increases. Earlier this year, it warned that the increase in employer national insurance contributions announced in the Budget would cost the business some £120 million. For a company that is expected to balance the books while providing a complex, expensive and reliable weekly service, that is not a trivial sum. It is yet another burden placed upon a business whose quality of service was regrettably already in decline.
Royal Mail has missed its first-class and second-class delivery targets for the Government’s first two years in office. Additional national insurance tax could otherwise have gone towards these delivery targets but, instead, the public are feeling the effects of a worse service caused partly by taxes that they are having to subsidise.
Now the bill is being passed on again. From 5 October, Royal Mail wholesale prices—the mail that carries marketing communications, household bills and medical appointment notices—will rise by an average of 25%. To put that in context, the NHS alone spent over £100 million posting letters last year. A rise of this scale will land squarely on public services and ordinary households alike.
We should not impose new costs and taxes on essential providers with one hand, while expressing dismay at declining service and rising prices with the other. What assessment has the Treasury made of the impact of the national insurance rise on these universal service providers? What discussions has the department had with Ofcom about protecting consumers, particularly the elderly and vulnerable, from these compounding pressures?
Lord Hunt of Wirral (Con)
My Lords, I welcome the Minister. He has entered the House today. I cannot recall a moment when a noble Lord—particularly a Minister—has made a maiden speech on the very day of entry. We can hardly bear the wait. Who is going to pay tribute on this wonderful occasion? I hope the Chief Whip will find some way of ensuring that happens.
The noble Lord’s transition from the leadership role that he held in Scotland to the Front Bench here serves as a reminder of the great value of the union between Scotland and the rest of the United Kingdom. As a Liverpudlian, I welcome this one-way traffic down the M1. In many ways, the noble Lord shares a lot with our new Prime Minister. They were both Members of the House of Commons. They both held prominent positions as leaders of the north. They are both now back in Parliament. I wish the noble Lord well in his role.
I thank the noble Lord, Lord Pack, for this great opportunity to debate the question of a reliable postal and parcel service. As the noble Lord said, it is a vital lifeline. These services remain essential to households and businesses across the country. As several of my colleagues have just pointed out, since taking office the Government have placed substantial additional costs on Royal Mail, as they have on all businesses across the UK. As my noble friend Lord Effingham pointed out, Royal Mail has estimated that it will face an additional tax burden of approximately £120 million every year from 2025-26 as a result of the Government’s decision to increase employer national insurance contributions. Royal Mail warned that these increased costs impinge on its ability to deliver change. This £120 million has to be found from the same business that needs urgently to invest in its network, improve pay and conditions, recruit and retain its workforce, improve productivity and ultimately deliver a faster and more reliable service to its customers.
As my noble friend Lord Redwood pointed out, industrial relations is another part of the same picture. Royal Mail, sadly, has a long and difficult history of industrial disputes. Of course, the major national industrial action of recent years pre-dated this Government. Surely, the lesson from that experience should have been that we needed a sensible balance between the rights of trade unions and the ability of employers to continue operating and restructuring their businesses. Instead, through the Employment Rights Act 2025, the Government have moved substantially in the opposite direction. They have legislated to abolish the 50% turnout requirement for industrial action ballots. They have reduced the notice that unions must give employers before industrial action from 14 days to 10 and doubled the duration of an industrial action mandate from six to 12 months.
Taken together, these measures all serve to constrain employers precisely when the Royal Mail needs flexibility to transform its operations—which brings me to the universal service obligation. In July 2025, Ofcom gave Royal Mail greater flexibility, including allowing second-class letters to be delivered on alternate weekdays. However, those changes could simply not be put into practice because implementation of Royal Mail’s new operational model became caught up in its industrial dispute with the CWU. Ofcom itself subsequently said that progress had been constrained by the ongoing industrial dispute, and agreement was not reached until April this year. Against that background, I question whether the Government’s decision to remove still more safeguards around industrial action will make future transformation easier or harder.
Then there is the approach taken by Ofcom, which the noble Lord referred to. Royal Mail was fined £10.5 million in December 2024 for its previous performance. It was then fined a further £21 million in October 2025. Together, that is £31.5 million in penalties imposed since this Government took office, and more than £37 million in recent years. These fines do not go towards recruiting more postmen and women; they do not finance better sorting equipment; they do not fund new vehicles, technology or improved delivery offices—they are paid into the Consolidated Fund. At some point, surely, we must question whether the crude act of simply imposing larger and larger fines on a business already struggling with mounting costs is creating the right incentives and improving matters in any way at all.
What evidence do the Government have that this repeated cycle of financial penalties is actually producing better outcomes for customers? What discussions are the Government having with Ofcom about whether its regulatory approach is actually working? Also, what assessment have Ministers and Ofcom made of the underlying productivity problem within Royal Mail?
The measure of successful regulation should not be how much money Ofcom can extract from Royal Mail. My noble friend Lord Mott pointed out the advantages of new technology. Let us make sure we take every opportunity to take advantage of this new technology. It should all be about whether letters and parcels arrive reliably, whether productivity improves and whether we retain a financially sustainable universal postal service for the future, a system of which we can rightly be proud.
The Minister of State, Department for Business, Innovation, Science and Trade (Lord Sarwar) (Lab) (Maiden Speech)
My Lords, thank you first of all for the very kind comments. I am pleased to respond to this Question for Short Debate as part of my maiden speech. I thank the noble Lord for bringing forward this important debate. I also start with an apology that it will not get the full and detailed response it deserves, given that it is a maiden speech. But I make both a firm commitment to meet the noble Lord and the commitment he asked for to look at all the issues so that we give the people of this country the postal service they need and deserve.
With noble Lords’ permission, I want to share some reflections before responding directly to the issues raised. I cannot help but think about the journey that got me to this place and the many, many people who have supported me along the way. It feels pretty surreal standing to make my third career maiden speech in a third Chamber. My first was in the House of Commons 16 years ago, my second in the Scottish Parliament 10 years ago, and today in the House of Lords. At 43 years old, it feels like I am living my life in fast forward.
There is nothing I could have done in my life if it was not for the great people of Glasgow. It is a city that raised me, that shaped me, that taught me my values and gave me my passion for social justice. But it is also a city that taught me not to be afraid to do difficult things: as a teenager, campaigning to save the Govan shipyard; as a young adult, being an NHS dentist in the area with the poorest dental health record in western Europe; as a relatively new Member of Parliament, becoming the deputy leader of the Scottish Labour Party and helping lead the campaign for Scotland to remain in the United Kingdom; throughout my time in the Commons, campaigning for the recognition of a Palestinian state, a proud achievement of this Labour Government; and as shadow Health Secretary in Scotland, working with whistleblowers and grieving families to expose the Queen Elizabeth University Hospital scandal. I repeat a promise that I made to all those families: I may have moved to a different Chamber, but I will continue to stand with them until they get the truth and the justice they deserve.
In 2021, I had the honour of being elected to lead my party in Scotland with just 10 weeks to go before an election. Hollowed out, divided, skint—a Scottish term, for those who do not know it—and with just one MP, we were viewed as the drag on the UK Labour Party’s chances of winning an election. I will be for ever proud that three years later Scotland led the way in changing the Government and electing a UK Labour Government, going from one MP to 37 MPs.
There have no doubt been many achievements in the first two years of this Labour Government, but we must be honest that, for many, we did not live up to their early expectations, and they were keen to deliver that message in May. I remain heartsore at the outcome of the Scottish elections, not because of what it meant for me—you learn to develop a thick skin in the Scottish Labour Party—but because of what it means for my fellow Scots. Scotland needs a new Government and new politicians who are willing to confront the big challenges. It needs an NHS that is there when you need it, an education and skills system that guarantees opportunities for every young person, an economy that backs innovation and entrepreneurship and a politics that puts place before parties so that every part of our great country can flourish. To my colleagues and friends in the Scottish Labour Party, note that I will always be cheering you on and working for your success. To whoever my successor is, know that you will always have my unequivocal support in public and, as a former leader, my advice in private.
I have been fortunate to have so many political friends and supporters over the years—they are too many to name individually, but they know who they are and I thank them dearly. But every politician also knows that you can do nothing without your staff team. Over the years, I have been supported by so many hard-working, committed and incredible people, not least the brilliant Kate Watson. She, and they, will always be family.
Speaking of family, I could not do it without mine. I thank them for their love, patience and understanding and, most of all, for making sure that my feet are, and always will be, firmly on the ground. I hope that I have done you a little proud. I am certainly proud of each and every single one of you.
I am joined in the Gallery today by my mother and father, faces that I know are well known to many noble Lords, because, yes, I may have been the first person of Muslim heritage to lead a major political party in the UK, but I was certainly not its first Muslim MP. That achievement belongs to my father. Almost 30 years after his election as the Labour MP for Glasgow Govan, it is truly humbling for me to be standing here addressing what he would call the other place. I imagine that in some ways this will feel like a bit of a homecoming for him. Many noble Lords served with him and so have known me from a very young age, but let me reassure them that, while I have aged, they have not.
I look around the Chamber and see many who have supported, encouraged, advised, consoled and even, on rare occasions, rebuked me over the years. I am sure that will continue. I hope noble Lords will forgive me for remembering one person in particular, Baroness Meta Ramsey, who remains in our hearts today.
That brings me to the here and now and why I answered the call to serve. I played my part in helping the Labour Party succeed at the last general election, but our new Prime Minister must succeed, this Government must succeed and, most importantly of all, our country must succeed. I am determined to play my part in making that happen. As the late, great John Smith once said:
“The opportunity to serve … is all we ask”.
I could not turn that opportunity down.
But there is also, in my view, a bigger fight that cannot I walk away from and which I am determined to play my part in. That is the fight for the heart and soul of our nation. It is about who we are as a people and as a country. For me, that goes beyond the usual mainstream political divide. Who are we as a country? Do we continue to look out for and love our neighbour or do we treat them with suspicion? Are we a country that succumbs to the politics of division and hate or are we going to make sure that we have a country and a politics that believes in unity and hope? That is the generational challenge for all of us and one that I hope we overcome.
It is no secret that I have expressed public views on this place before. I, alongside a certain former Mayor of Greater Manchester, now the Prime Minister, advocated for reform of this institution. I reassure noble Lords that I did so questioning the principle, not the purpose or the people. I continue to support a more democratic and representative upper Chamber, a senate of the nations and regions.
I am deeply honoured to have been asked by the Prime Minister to serve as the UK’s Minister of State for Trade, with a clear mission and objective to make the UK the most connected economy in the world. That will be measured in maximising exports going out of the UK and investments coming into the UK and in making sure that good growth is felt in every postcode, every region and every nation.
In the closing moments, let me make sure that I also address some of the challenges raised in the Question. We have greater economic insecurity than perhaps ever before, and I think this country has to demonstrate trade and economic leadership. That means building more partnerships and embracing a more interconnected world rather than having over-protectionism in this country or, indeed, across the globe. We can see many of the challenges of the new economy in our postal delivery service. Our economy is changing, and habits are changing. We are now sending fewer letters than ever before, but we are sending and receiving more parcels than ever before, with 4.2 billion items sent in the last year alone. We have the rise of new online giants such as Amazon, eBay and AO, to name a few. That is putting more pressure on our SMEs and businesses, and how do they compete?
People have a lot more demands of what they expect from a quality service in postal deliveries. Yes, satisfaction is relatively high, but noble Lords are right to say that the consistency of that service and its handling of complaints is nowhere near good enough. The Minister in the other place has met Ofcom and businesses to make known to them that she is not content with that performance so far. I say again that I am happy to meet individually any noble Lord who has a care about this issue and I am happy to robustly challenge Ofcom and the businesses related to postal delivery services to make sure that they live up to people’s expectation.
In closing, it is an honour to be here. I thank the Whips for making sure I get to work here straightaway, and I look forward to working with all noble Lords to deliver for all the great people of this great country.
Captain of the Honourable Corps of Gentlemen-at-Arms and Chief Whip (Lord Kennedy of Southwark) (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend Lord Sarwar on a truly excellent maiden speech. Delivering your first speech from the Government Dispatch Box is not easy. That was an outstanding, articulate, fantastic speech. We are so lucky to have my noble friend in our House. We look forward to hearing him many more times. My noble friend brings many years of experience, having served in the other place and the Scottish Parliament. He has a distinguished record of public service. We all look forward to having him here with us and to hearing more contributions from him. I believe he is on his feet in this House again tomorrow, so we are keeping him busy right from the start. We have had a fantastic speech, and we are so lucky to have him here.
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, the Captain of the Gentleman-at-Arms has made a rather irregular intervention, which I thoroughly approve of. Since, by accident, I happen to be here as Leader of the Opposition, on behalf of these Benches I also congratulate the noble Lord, as I know any of our colleagues who might have spoken after him would have done, on a most distinguished maiden speech. We greatly enjoyed it. It was delivered with fluency and charm, and he already demonstrates the civility that is the great thing about this House. We do not shout at each other, at least not inside the Chamber. I recognised what the noble Lord said about sometimes needing a thick skin in Scottish Labour politics. I have to tell him that sometimes you have needed a thick skin in English Conservative politics. I congratulate the noble Lord, and we look forward to hearing him on many future occasions.
Government Political Priorities and Legislative Agenda
(1 day, 7 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath
That this House takes note of the Government’s political priorities and legislative agenda.
Captain of the King’s Bodyguard of the Yeomen of the Guard and Deputy Chief Whip (Baroness Anderson of Stoke-on-Trent) (Lab)
My Lords, as set out on Today’s List, Back-Bench speeches in this debate should be limited to four minutes. I am sure I speak on behalf of Members across the House when I say that I would be grateful if Members could stick to this advisory time to ensure that the Minister has adequate time to respond to the points raised.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, I want to start this debate by paying tribute to Sir Keir Starmer for his immense services to the country. He took Labour to a landslide general election victory. He inherited a country reeling from 14 years of Conservative rule resulting in a weak economy, failing public services and shockingly run-down defences. Under his stewardship the economy grew, public services improved, violent crime reduced and our international reputation has been enhanced, not least because of his stalwart support for Ukraine.
No one can be in doubt that this country faces considerable challenges. As the Prime Minister told the Commons on Tuesday:
“Things are not working as they should. Life is too expensive and too hard for too many”.—[Official Report, Commons, 1/9/26; col. 26.]
The Prime Minister believes that much of this malaise has been caused by a series of damaging wrong turns that centralised political power and surrendered public control over vital utilities, leaving citizens vulnerable to inflated cost, which was then compounded by Brexit.
The noble Lord, Lord True, said in his eloquent tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Sarwar, that we do not shout at each other in this Chamber. That is right, but I want to comment on a remark he made yesterday on the Statement when he accused this Government of going back to the 1970s. I gently point out to him that this country was much more equal in the 1970s. The last 40 or so years have seen us lose that equality, with 10% prospering but 90% falling behind or stagnating. Many of the places and people most affected have not recovered from deindustrialisation.
The Government are ambitious to improve the standard of living, sort out social care and housing, boost vocational education, meet our NATO defence commitments and make the UK’s voice count. The Prime Minister is clear that devolution is the key to progress and prosperity, with the setting up of No. 10 North at the heart of the growth agenda. As a Brummie, I say that we have now redefined ourselves as being part of the north.
The immediate measures taken by the Government are important both in themselves and as a visible sign of intent for the longer term. They include: capping bus fares at £2 in England, which has been a huge boost to many, many people; cutting VAT on electricity bills; reducing tax on pubs; investing to get rough sleepers off the street; funding to support the delivery in the first instance of more than 70,000 social homes; and action on the mountains of illegally dumped waste. The Prime Minister is using government to make a difference for people who feel hard pressed, solving problems that have been long neglected or where public authorities have been too slow, unwilling or seemingly powerless to act.
The economy is clearly critical to this. Despite doom-laden predictions, the UK economy had GDP growth of 0.6% in the first quarter, followed by 0.4% in the second quarter. In fact, the UK is currently the fastest-growing G7 economy. Borrowing this fiscal year is running £6 billion below last year and, as the ONS has noted, it was the 12th lowest April to July period since 1993.
The noble Lord, Lord True, mentioned borrowing yesterday. We hear a lot from the Conservatives about borrowing, and they certainly know a thing or two about it: the last Conservative Government borrowed more than the G7 average in every single one of their 14 years in Government. This year, this Government are borrowing less. I have to say that the appointment of Andrew Griffith, the co-author of Liz Truss’s mini-Budget, as shadow Chancellor makes one question the seriousness of the claim that the party opposite has to economic competence.
In relation to debt, recent analysis by Morgan Stanley compared its estimate of the UK’s 96% general debt-to-GDP ratio at the end of this year with that of 120% for China, 120% for France and 125% for the US, with Japan and Italy higher still. Morgan Stanley commented two weeks ago that the UK stands out among the major economies in trying to do something about rising debt.
Clearly, growing the economy becomes crucial to the future. There are three points that I will put to my noble friend that I think are important to growing the economy. The first is tackling the high costs of and long timescale for building essential infrastructure in this country. The Centre for British Progress has reported that British public investment is on a par with OECD averages but we get less back from it. The government response to the Fingleton review on nuclear regulation put it very well:
“Our regulatory, environmental and planning processes have become too fragmented, too cautious and too slow, driving up costs”.
The recently enacted Planning and Infrastructure Act will deal with some of the blockages, and I am delighted that elected mayors are going to be given powers to take over large-scale planning applications. I urge the Government to go further and extend that to energy infrastructure projects, and to speedily legislate for Fingleton’s recommendations.
A second key factor in growing the economy is sticking to our commitment to net zero in the face of ever-worsening climate change. The Conservatives’ retreat from their commitments on net zero—this was the party that actually legislated for net zero—is no reason why we as a Government should resile from those targets; nor will obsessing about marginal increases in output from the rapidly declining North Sea oil and gas reserves have any impact whatever on energy prices. I readily acknowledge that energy prices are too high both for industry and domestically, but I hope the Government will be brave on this and fundamentally reform our flawed energy pricing system, in which volatile gas prices can set the cost of homegrown renewable energy. So, no retreat on net zero—it has huge potential for growth. CBI analysis recently estimated it to be a £105 billion sector, generating highly skilled jobs across every part of the UK.
A third factor in growth, for me, is getting young people into work. Alan Milburn’s seminal review identified nearly 1 million 16 to 24 year-olds who are not in education, employment or training, and of course behind those statistics lie stagnated aspirations and hopelessness. Over the past decade, the proportion who say they are NEET due to a work-limiting health condition has increased by 70%. Once health-related inactivity takes hold, moving those people into employment becomes incredibly challenging.
In contrast to the Conservatives’ brutal approach to welfare, I believe we need a welfare system to protect those who cannot work and provide proper financial security for people with severe or enduring disabilities. But for young people who could participate with the right support, our welfare system should be a springboard to employment. That is why the Government’s emphasis on vocational education, with links into local industry, is so important, and that was a subject of an excellent debate earlier today led by my noble friend Lady Morgan.
I am convinced that negative attitudes towards vocational education have bedevilled this country over decades, leading to an FE sector deprived of resources, where staff are underpaid compared with schoolteachers, and where a VAT burden is unfairly placed upon them—I hope my noble friend may have some good news in relation to that. There is no question in my mind that technical excellence needs to be recognised as being as valid as academic excellence. Encouraging and allowing young people to follow a skills route at 14 opens the gateway to huge opportunities. The noble Lord, Lord Baker, spoke eloquently in the earlier debate about the importance of technical education.
Of all the social issues we face, for me the provision of adult social care is the most pressing. Its current shortcomings impact badly on the NHS, as can be seen from the spectacle of corridor care, delayed discharges and too many people admitted into hospital. I also echo what the noble Baroness, Lady Casey, said in her July speech to the LGA when she argued that previous attempts at reform have failed because they have either tinkered with parts of the system or tried to push through changes without securing public consent for the tough choices involved, and there will be tough choices.
The NHS needs to change as well. One reason—this comes from my personal experience with in-laws and my mother—that so many people are inappropriately in hospital is that, in too many cases, the NHS itself puts up barriers to treatment at home or in care homes, which forces people into A&E. We need the NHS to really start to shift that proposition.
On the global stage, the Prime Minister is making the UK’s voice count. His decision to help Ukraine build long-range missiles is both encouraging and a sign of the UK’s unwavering support for that country.
The global picture is one of increasing instability, as Mark Carney, the Canadian Premier, pointed out in his Davos speech last year. He said that
“there is a rupture in the world order … we live in an era of great power rivalry”,
with the rules-based order fading. In calling for co-operation among middle powers, Carney said that middle powers are not powerless:
“They have the capacity to build a new order that encompasses our values, such as respect for human rights, sustainable development, solidarity, sovereignty and territorial integrity of … states”.
We have huge potential in the UK to co-operate with like-minded countries, and that of course must include the EU. On that, the Prime Minister emphasised the benefits of a closer UK-EU relationship, forging links on trade, security and economic growth. This of course very much links to defence.
The 2025 strategic defence review was clear. It said:
“For the first time since the end of the Cold War, the UK faces multiple, direct threats to its security, prosperity, and democratic values”.
The UK is committed to reaching NATO’s target of 3.5% of GDP on defence by 2035. The defence investment plan has brought an additional £15 billion for defence over the period to 2029-30, on top of what was allocated in the 2025 spending review. Despite media comment over the last few days, the Chancellor has been consistent over the last few months that he would set a clear path to meeting our 3.5% NATO commitment at the next spending review and a target date for 3%.
I just repeat the words of the Prime Minister and Chancellor when they said:
“The determination that we share is to do what’s necessary to keep the country safe, and a recognition, quite simply, of that truism, that for any government the first duty is to keep citizens safe”.
What else is there to say? I believe that our new Prime Minister offers us hope through strong intent and hard actions, actions to deliver economic growth, improve security, and provide better public services and relief from the cost of living increase. For all our problems and challenges, we as a country have very much to be proud of. We have so much going for us and it is that and the hope that the Prime Minister brings that underpin this Government’s programmes and priorities. I beg to move.
Baroness Coffey (Con)
My Lords, there is a street in Liverpool called Hope Street. It is very special. At each end there is a cathedral and in between are cultural wonders: not only the grade 1 listed toilets in the Philharmonic drinking house—the pub—but the Philharmonic Hall, the Everyman Theatre and, indeed, places of education. Hope has been the big vibe of our new Prime Minister, but we need to make sure that hope translates into delivery. I, too, am a person of faith, but having heard what the Prime Minister has been saying in various speeches, it may take a leap of faith to know how we will get that growth and hope for young people.
The Prime Minister should take the advice of the noble Lord, Lord O’Neill of Gatley, who, just after hearing the Prime Minister the other day, said that what he said would worry investors. I appreciate that the Prime Minister wants to succeed—I am not disputing that in any way—but to try to destroy the past, including the very successful years of the Blair Government, would be a mistake, as would thinking that the 1970s were all rosy. We had huge mortgage rates and inflation and you needed candles to do your homework. I do not know whether the House of Lords was even able to keep the lights on while legislating.
However, I welcome the commitment made by the Prime Minister yesterday to get defence spending to 3% of GNI by 2030. I am sure that, if the Prime Minister needs to go back to the House of Commons to correct the record, he will but, actually, I do not think he wants to lose another Chancellor. I am confident that they will find a way together. They might want to take the advice of the leader of the Opposition, who set out a path to achieve that.
The First Secretary of State made an interesting Statement yesterday about rewiring the state. I welcome a lot of it, including more power going back to Ministers, who should be accountable. We will have to consider how we will legislate for quite a lot of it, because it is through legislation that many powers are being taken away from Ministers and given to non-ministerial departments and other bodies. We will also need to look into what is happening with the delays and consultations referred to. To give an example, we know that Labour Back-Benchers are nervous about changes to the welfare system. They are very quick to vote for legislation that rapidly increases benefits, but not so quick to look into necessary reforms. Indeed, the Timms review has apparently been delayed again. These are the sorts of challenges that vibes and hope will not get through; it will take detailed work to genuinely get the country on to a better path in terms of prosperity for all.
The noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, seemed to spend half his speech talking about the Opposition instead of the future of the Government, although he did mention the Fingleton review and the like. I gently remind noble Lords that, although there were, undoubtedly, difficulties in our time in office—part of which we shared with the Liberal Democrats during the coalition—we inherited an 11% deficit in 2010 and went through Covid when, frankly, the whole economy juddered to a halt. We undertook unprecedented borrowing to protect people’s health and to be ready to spring back, but difficult decisions were made which will take time to recover from. Therefore, hope is not enough. Let us all work together to make sure that we get the growth that we all desire.
Lord Storey (LD)
My Lords, I am sure we all wish Andy Burnham well in his new job as our Prime Minister. He is able to connect with people, is a good communicator and he listens. He has certainly said the right things and spoken honestly and with sincerity about the major issues that we face. But speaking about issues is the easy part; carrying out the actions and holding his and his Government’s nerve when the going gets tough is a very different matter.
He was right to say that Brexit has had a devastating effect on our economy. It may be a bit of an understatement. I would also remind him, supportively, that if Labour at the time of Brexit had fully engaged with the remain campaign, rather than its then leader’s pipsqueak response, we would still be in and at the heart of Europe. As a result, GDP in the UK is 6% to 8% smaller than it should have been, and we have lost £90 billion a year in tax revenues. I look forward to the Government moving much closer to Europe on so many fronts and laying firm foundations to our eventually reapplying to join the EU.
The Prime Minister is committed to properly funded social care provision and has reached out to other parties to work with him. How refreshing is this? My party, which has also championed this issue, will certainly do so. I remember when local authorities had the financial resources to open care homes for the elderly. We have seen how private equity companies have moved in on children’s homes. I do not want to see care homes being run by multinational companies; my hope instead is that they be run by LAs, charities and not-for-profit providers, which are part of the community. The duty of any Government is to protect its people and ensure that the economy is on a firm footing. Paying debt charges—borrowing charges—of between £300 million and £337 million every single day is mad. Just think what that money could be spent on.
In financial education we teach children the dangers of interest charges. A “live now, pay later” economy is not what we should be having. To get the economy on an even keel will require nerves of steel, and tough decisions and tough choices will have to be made. Welfare spending is forecast to exceed £400 billion a year by the early 2030s. UK borrowing costs have risen sharply, with the 10-year gilt yield reaching 5.23% and the 30-year yield reaching 5.87%. We are being warned that we have halved the roughly £24 billion of fiscal headroom, while public spending is forecast to reach 44.9%.
The world is a very dangerous place, and who would have thought there would be a war on our own doorstep. Putin’s Russia is pushing the boundaries all the time, whether through proxy agents or misinformation. As a nation we need to make sure that if, God forbid, there is armed conflict, we can protect ourselves and support others. In recent years our military has been hollowed out, leaving the Army and the Navy the smallest since the Napoleonic wars. We need to be able to commit to our contribution of 3.5% not by promises but by having identified the money upfront. My party suggested war bonds as a means of raising finance. I hope the Government will explore that option.
Finally, I want to say how disgraceful it is that we are heading towards 1 million people not in school, training or a job. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, on this. We cannot wait for Alan Milburn’s report: we must do something now.
The Lord Bishop of Manchester
My Lords, the economist Keynes, upbraided for changing his view on some matters, allegedly responded with the phrase:
“When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do?”
In the 26 months since the general election, the facts have changed. We have seen the US assault on Iran, the explosive growth of AI, the devastating impact of climate change—alluded to by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath—threatening harvests here while killing hundreds in Nepal and Tibet. Meanwhile, we stand closer to global war than at any time since my childhood. The facts have changed.
Keynes changed his mind. He did not resign and reapply for his post; rather, he sought to win others to his revised opinions. I have heard it said that our new Prime Minister must stick to the 2024 Labour manifesto or go to the country, but that is not how I believe Parliament should work. We are a well-informed and reasonable House. Many of us—not least on my own Bench, and the Cross-Benchers—owe no allegiance to any party master. We swear our oath, as do all noble Lords, to the Crown. We will scrutinise whatever matters are brought before us with our usual diligence. I would, however, be surprised and alarmed if we withheld consent simply because a proposal reflected the context of 2026, not 2024.
I turn to two specific points. I welcome what we heard from our Prime Minister about renewed efforts to tackle homelessness. My churches and other places of worship have been at the forefront of work on this, alongside the Greater Manchester Combined Authority. The scandals of rough sleeping, of children trying to access education while living in temporary accommodation, cannot be allowed to continue. Having recently chaired the Manchester social housing commission, I welcome a determination to build more social homes.
Along with the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, I warm to the speeding up of the Casey review into social care. I pray that this time, we will end up with action, not just another report. I remember the Dilnot report, which I thought was a good thing at the time. But if we have to consider again in this House, as I suspect we will, matters such as assisted dying, at least we can do so in the context of a proper offer of palliative care to all, as the Prime Minister has said.
Three years ago, I was privileged to stand alongside Mr Burnham when he and the faith leaders of Greater Manchester met Pope Francis. We did not just give Pope Francis a signed Manchester United football shirt; we also committed ourselves to our net-zero target. The climate emergency is not some woke middle-class distraction; it is destroying the lives and livelihoods of the poorest across the globe—those in the communities I meet when I visit my Anglican sisters and brothers in the global South—and it is an increasing drag on well-being and the household economy in Britain.
This is, by its nature, a short debate, so I urge the Government to consider whether the best way to present fresh proposals to your Lordships’ House would be through a fresh Session of Parliament before the end of this year, so that His Majesty can set out a full programme before us and we can have a more substantial discussion at an early stage.
I began with an economist and segued via a pope, so let me end with a Protestant theologian. Martin Luther, challenged by the inertia of so much of the church of his day, urged his followers on with the words:
“If you must sin, sin boldly”.
I urge our new Prime Minister and his Government to show similar boldness, and then let us here in this Chamber weed out any of it we judge to be a sin.
Lord Eatwell (Lab)
My Lords, economic growth is the Government’s prime objective. Growth provides the resources to fund all our national goals, from health to the police; from defence to a fair distribution of income. Central to the growth objective is investment. Rachel Reeves laid the foundations for a growing economy with a 12% increase in public investment this year, but on that foundation must be built a programme of increasing investment in science and technology—the inventive core of a competitive economy.
Reflecting on the underlying strengths of Britain, politicians invariably cite our outstanding research universities, yet we now have daily reports of the financial difficulties being experienced by the university sector. We can debate the origins of those difficulties, but that is to look backwards. Looking forwards, we must ensure that the research universities thrive. They are Britain’s number one strength. That is why it was particularly distressing to learn on 9 July of the substantial cuts that are to be made to scientific research. By 2030, spending by the Science and Technology Facilities Council is to be cut by 15% in money terms, not even allowing for inflation. Research potentially impacted includes work on new cancer treatments and battery design.
The national research laboratories face the tightest squeeze: their funding is to fall by over half. Those are the national labs that developed radar, the computer and high-strength carbon fibre. The touch screen of your mobile phone was invented at a British national research lab—the Royal Radar Establishment. The national labs undertake research that would never be done in the private sector because the risks and uncertainties are too great, and the initial market often non-existent. Yet discoveries in those labs, often by serendipity, have changed the world.
Some research may, at first sight, appear irrelevant in the light of our economic problems—research in theoretical physics, for example—but that is a serious misconception. Consider, for example, the caesium atomic clock. Experimental physics developed at one of our national labs is now the basis of the timing of the internet and global navigation systems. Consider X-ray crystallography, a highly specialised branch of physics concerned with the arrangement of atoms. This technique now underpins genetic engineering, biotechnology and modern pharmaceuticals. More generally, consider the fact that, for years, this country’s finest mathematicians have worked on number theory, proving that the series of prime numbers is infinite, worrying about the minimum distance between primes, and so on. Totally abstract—yet, with the advent of digital computing, number theory is fundamental to all secure programming, including the programming of your mobile phone.
If Britain is to rediscover its competitive strength, we must not reduce our commitment to science. We must not lose our lead in research areas. The 9 July cuts are a signal of the nation’s faltering commitment to industrial strength. I trust that in his speech scheduled for Monday, the Chancellor will be able to assure the country that the new Government will reverse the cuts of 9 July.
Baroness Benjamin (LD)
My Lords, a new report by Justice, a law reform charity, and King’s College London has found that survivors of the Home Office Windrush scandal who seek compensation should receive the same free legal support given to victims of the Post Office and infected blood scandals. The report points out that the Government have set up a series of compensation schemes in response to all three state injustices, yet Windrush victims have been denied free legal help with their claims. The Home Office, which runs the Windrush compensation scheme, has argued that the process is more straightforward than others and says it was designed to be accessible without free legal support. But the report found that the Windrush scheme is just as complicated as the others, involving assessments of historic laws, facts and evidence that are complex even for lawyers and judges. Recalling precise dates and sequences of events in the distant past can also prove challenging, particularly for very elderly claimants. Also, victims suffering from severe trauma may find it all too painful to engage with the scheme.
Lawyers for Windrush claimants have described the process as torturous, blaming a culture of disbelief among Home Office staff for delays and unreasonable refusals. Post Office claimants have the option of taking a fixed compensation payment between £75,000 and £600,000 at the start of the process, allowing them to avoid the stress of providing detailed evidence to demonstrate their losses. But there is no equivalent option available to Windrush victims, who have to demonstrate their losses through a lengthy and complex claims process, with no funding provided for any expert evidence that may be needed.
Windrush victims also find themselves at a disadvantage if they wish to challenge the compensation order, as the scheme lacks an independent appeals process, unlike the infected blood and Post Office schemes. There is no justification for treating Windrush claimants differently from other scandal victims. If the Prime Minister is serious about righting this historic injustice, he must level the playing field and give them the legal support they need and deserve. Yes, a Windrush commissioner has been appointed. But to improve fairness and accountability, the report calls for the provision of funded legal advice and the creation of an independent expert appeals body with the power to make binding compensation awards for the Windrush scheme.
Given this new evidence for change, will the Government act on the findings of the Justice and King’s College London report to deliver a fairer and more accessible compensation scheme for the Windrush victims and survivors? The Windrush generation answered the call to come and rebuild Britain after the war. Surely the Government should now answer their call for justice and to restore trust. I look forward to the Minister’s response.
Baroness Royall of Blaisdon (Lab)
My Lords, the values that drive the Government’s political priorities are Labour values, shared by the new Prime Minister and the former Prime Minister, to whom I also pay tribute. There has, however, been a very welcome change of tone and direction, building on the work of the last two years. I celebrate the hope, the optimism, the positivity and the determination to do politics differently. Our citizens want and deserve problem-solving rather than point-scoring, because that alienates people rather than encouraging them to engage.
The cross-party talks over social care are a fine example of doing things differently—understanding that achieving consensus is a strength, not a weakness. The Prime Minister shows great courage in his resolve to address the desperately needed reform of social care. He has a very long-term interest in this, which is well known. There is a huge lack of workers in social care, with a vacancy rate of more than 8%. Will consideration be given to enabling more workers to come from overseas so that we can provide a better service in social care while it is being reformed?
I agree with the Prime Minister’s analysis of the current situation in this country and the damage done to the fabric of our country and the economy, including by Brexit, which, as he said in the Commons,
“compounded the damage, ushering in a decade of low growth and stalled regeneration”.—[Official Report, Commons, 1/9/26; col. 27.]
His words will, I hope, give impetus to the UK-EU reset.
The economic challenges are mighty. We are continually buffeted by global storms and people are suffering, but action is already being taken to address the lives of people, including the homeless. This is a moral but very practical mission. The right reverend Prelate spoke about homelessness. On the day that he became Prime Minister, before he went to the Palace, the Prime Minister went to the Passage, a homeless charity where he met people sleeping rough. In his speech outside No. 10, he pledged to end rough sleeping in England and, just last month, he announced immediate action to offer everyone who needs it a route off the streets by Christmas. Accommodation and support will be rolled out across England this winter, backed by £442 million of funding. Areas in the greatest need will receive the largest share of the money, with mayors working with councils to make decisions on delivering help where it is needed most. This, I believe, is devolution in action.
Homelessness damages the lives of individuals and their physical and mental health, and it affects their dignity. It impacts on many areas of policy, not least the health of our nation. One in six people recalled to prison in breach of their licence is homeless. They have not committed a further offence; they simply do not have the roof over their heads that everyone deserves. If a person is homeless, they cannot get or sustain employment. If a child is in temporary accommodation, they cannot do their homework. Safe, affordable homes are vital. I warmly welcome the £10 billion pledge to build 70,000 homes in the first tranche of the social and affordable homes programme in England. It would indeed be great if they could be built near railway stations.
This Government are radical and will act to ensure sustainable change for individuals and the country, galvanised by hope. To quote Bertrand Russell:
“Man needs … hope and enterprise and change”.
Baroness Sheehan (LD)
My Lords, I am pleased that we are having this very necessary debate, and I thank the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, for moving it, not least because it gives me a chance to highlight my Private Member’s Bill targeting waste crime. It is a critical issue that I am delighted to say the Prime Minister himself has prioritised for action—not just words this time, we hope.
Last year, the report on waste crime by your Lordships’ Environment and Climate Change Committee, which I chair, drew attention to the appalling illegal dump at Hoads Wood, a protected SSSI site in Kent. Despite persistent warnings from local residents to the council, the Environment Agency and the police, nothing was done. The week after our report appeared, the notorious Kidlington dump was discovered, with over 20,000 tonnes of illegal waste. These are not one-off cases. Numerous other super-sites continue to blight communities for years without intervention, not least the dreadful site in Bickershaw, Wigan, in the Prime Minister’s own constituency—that may have had something to do with the prioritisation; I do hope so. Around 38 million tonnes of waste are illegally managed each year. The waste services representative body, the Environmental Services Association, estimates lost tax revenue at £2 billion each year, which is double the official estimates.
While criminals profit from this low-risk, high-reward enterprise, the financial burden of clean-up falls squarely on taxpayers and private landlords. Organised crime groups are comprehensively outmanoeuvring our enforcement bodies. To solve this crisis, we must trace the waste to its source and turn off the tap. Rather than continuously using public money to rectify environmental and community damage, my Private Member’s Bill—the Corporate Waste Responsibility Bill—addresses the problem at its roots.
The Bill is simple. It holds large corporations legally and financially accountable for the waste they produce or control by, first, requiring large companies to designate a named director to be responsible for enforcing statutory waste duty of care compliance. That means overseeing the journey of the waste from its production to its final resting place. Secondly, it imposes direct financial liability on these corporations for the clearance and remediation of their waste whenever it is mismanaged and the duty of care standards are breached. By establishing clear board-level accountability and ensuring that businesses bear the financial responsibility for their waste, this legislation aims to halt illegal waste sites and dismantle waste crime before it begins. I hope the new Secretary of State and the Prime Minister will give it their support.
Lord Whitty (Lab)
My Lords, my noble friend Lord Hunt gave an eloquent introduction to this debate as to why we should support the Government’s political aims. I am a well-known Labour Party hack and I tend to vote for the Government on most occasions, but I have to admit that, in the early months of this Government, I had my doubts from time to time as to whether I totally shared what I thought were the political aims of this Government; for example, when we had the winter fuel payment crisis, the national insurance increases, and the tax on farmers, which has been one of the Treasury’s favourite things to do for years, although previous Ministers had resisted.
However, I think the new Government under Andy Burnham have given us a new sense of purpose and direction. In general, I support the way in which they are going, but I would like some clear indication from my noble friend Lord Collins at the end of the debate that I am right so to do. I would like to have some commitments reaffirmed, in particular on net zero, because there has been some sniping, not just from the Opposition, various business interests, the petrostates and the United States, but from some within the Labour movement and others who would normally be supporting the Government. We must reiterate those objectives and our path to net zero must continue. That does not mean that there are not some compromises on the way, but the sense of direction and momentum need to continue and, if anything, be substantially enhanced. I think compromises along the lines that were advocated in the FT yesterday, on North Sea gas, might be sensible. But they should not stop the pace of switch to clean energy for the rest of this country.
There are other priorities I would like to see emphasised more, and the way in which we are going to do them to be clearer, in particular on housing. The numbers involved in housing have been reiterated recently by Angela Rayner and I welcome that recommitment, but there are some serious problems in the delivery of those houses; I am interested particularly in the amount of social housing that will be produced. The industry suffers from a double problem of an oligopoly among the developers and housebuilders, which constrains the choices that local authorities and others have on housebuilding and the pace at which it can be delivered, and a lack of adequate skills in the construction sector. We need to have a clear commitment to address both those problems.
We have just had a debate on employment, in which I and others emphasised the need for employment to be a serious priority for this Government, and how the coming Budget in six weeks’ time needs to be clear that employment, the quality of employment and the pace at which we can deliver jobs to the majority of our people need to be part of our economic policy.
There is a lot of debate about the fiscal rules. Rules are constraints and standards; they are not objectives. Objectives of economic policy and economic growth need to increase and develop the employment of the people of this country and the quality of employment which is available to them and their successors. If the Government can reiterate their commitment on these fronts, I will continue in my support for as long as I am able.
Lord Redwood (Con)
My Lords, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, that the national insurance increase and the farms tax were very bad ideas which did considerable damage. It is a pity that more noble Lords behind the Government did not make that clearer in time to avoid the disaster.
I hope that the new Prime Minister and new Chancellor will have learned from the bitter experience of the two Reeves Budgets, which allowed a large amount of adverse speculation, threatening everyone who is successful or enterprising or who has some savings with higher taxes, and then the Government were surprised when confidence was knocked; then they put taxes on in the Budget, which do considerable damage, and we then ended up with higher unemployment, fewer job vacancies, cancelled and deferred investment projects and a lack of confidence in the business community. We need the opposite of all those things, and I wish the new Prime Minister well if he can translate his TikTok optimism into a genuine set of policies which will promote enterprise, business, jobs and success, which are what is needed in this country.
As someone who has had conversations with and offered advice to a series of Prime Ministers and Chancellors on the Conservative side from Margaret Thatcher onwards, I have had the chance to observe at quite close quarters what has succeeded and quite often what does not succeed, and I have tried to learn from those experiences. I will share this piece of advice with the new Treasury team: take the bond market seriously. You may not like it and you may think it is wrong, but you are going to find it very difficult to argue with it.
Those very high costs of government borrowing now are a message. They are saying that the tax option is no longer there. Put taxes up more and you may even collect less revenue. They are saying that the spending is too high. You need to look at the benefits bill, as my noble friend the leader of the Conservatives in this House and our right honourable friend the leader of the Opposition have set out in considerable detail, describing how sensible, modest cuts and proposals would help—and by all means accelerate the work on how you can get more young people into work by positive means and get them off benefits, because that is crucial.
However, look at those interest rates. Labour made a lot of fuss when for one day under Liz Truss there was a spike to quite high levels in government borrowing costs, and some of them still carry on. I do not think they have understood that for the whole of 2025 and now for the whole of 2026 to date, government borrowing costs have been considerably higher than that one-day spike under Liz Truss. If the Truss spike was wrong, they are gratuitously wrong on an extended basis. There are two differences in the situation. The Truss Government did not borrow a penny at that very high rate on the spike day; this Government are borrowing, day after day and week after week, at these very elevated rates, which are at least 20% higher than the worst rate under Liz Truss.
The Government have not persuaded the Bank of England to stop selling bonds into a very depressed market, whereas the thing that got the rates back down again after the Truss Budget—which was spending too much—was of course the Bank of England stopping, for a period, selling the bonds at very depressed prices. The Government need to get a grip on that because they are doing themselves and us grave damage. I want this country to succeed, I want a strong, fast-growing economy, and I want those young people back into work. That takes lower interest rates, not higher interest rates, and it takes proper fiscal discipline. Spouting about fiscal rules does not work. You have to do the hard work and get the Budget into more balance.
Baroness Keeley (Lab)
My Lords, I want to focus on the Government’s priorities on creative education and the importance of making changes to improve the uptake of music education in state schools. I warmly welcome the Government’s acceptance of the curriculum and assessment review recommendations, including the removal of the Ebacc performance measure. This gives us the vital opportunity to rebalance education in our state schools and to support creative subjects and pathways, which have suffered a serious decline since 2010.
The Cultural Learning Alliance—CLA—has reported since 2024 on what it described as a “denuded Arts education landscape”. It has highlighted the erosion of arts provision in state schools and argued that the narrowing of subject choices through the EBacc led to a systematic devaluing of arts subjects and experiences.
In 2024, the CLA reported that the take-up of arts GCSEs had fallen by 42% since 2010. As the curriculum and assessment review highlighted, music has the highest disadvantage gap of any GCSE subject. It is deeply concerning that an “Arts entitlement gap” persists in state schools, with socio-economic background remaining a major determinant of arts participation at 14, 16 and 18. Schools in the most deprived fifth of local authorities are more likely to have no entries in some arts GCSEs. Fifty-four percent of state schools in those areas have no GCSE music entries, compared with only 21% in the least deprived authorities. Similarly, the most disadvantaged regions have the lowest A-level arts take-up. While welcoming the Government’s ambition to revitalise arts education, the CLA has warned us that
“the long tail of EBacc damage … will continue to impact subject choices at Key Stage 4”
and post-16.
Last night, I was at an event of the excellent Royal Philharmonic Society where they had convened the enormously talented trio of the cellist, Sheku Kannah-Mason, the horn player, Ben Goldscheider, and the saxophonist, Jess Gillam, for a discussion about music, in advance of their expected Prom on Sunday. These young musicians, who are among our most talented, were worried that music education is not in a great place and said, “It’s not what it was”. Like many musicians, they do what they can to support music in our schools, but they cannot, as individuals, solve the issues. It falls to us in this place to create a better future for both arts and music education in our state schools.
I am indebted to Professor Adam Whittaker and Dr Anthony Anderson for their research on disadvantaged-related attainment gaps in music education. From their work, I learned the disturbing fact that, in 18 local authorities, either only one school offers a music qualification—A-level or vocational—or, in the worst cases, no school does. These authorities include Knowsley, Hartlepool, South Tyneside, Rochdale, Salford and Tameside, as well as four London boroughs. This decline in music education must be reversed if we are serious about protecting the talent pipeline which we have in this country into our universities, conservatoires, orchestras and our successful music industry.
This Labour Government have rightly committed to removing the EBacc performance measure, but we now face the task of rebuilding music education, particularly in state schools serving our most deprived communities. In your Lordships’ House, we can continue to press DfE Ministers to reverse this decline—which happened of course under Conservative Governments—by rebuilding the music teacher workforce and restoring the bursary for music teacher training.
We have talked a lot in this debate about hope. My hope is that, under this Government and with this new PM, every young person, whatever their background, has the chance to choose music.
Lord Liddle (Lab)
My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend Lord Hunt on his excellent introduction to this debate.
I first met our new Prime Minister when he was a special adviser in the first term of the Blair Government. He was a great friend of the man with whom I shared an office in No. 10, James Purnell, who is now his chief of staff. It is a very nice thought that, 28 years later, they are working together to try to run the country.
I have always liked Andy Burnham. I have always thought he was a man with social Catholic values—if I wanted to describe it simply. I am not from that background, but I appreciate the people who are.
I want to make just one or two points—which no one else has mentioned, really—about the political reforms that Andy Burnham seems to have in mind. I am a passionate supporter of devolution. I think it will have a growth dividend, not in the immediate term but in 10 years or so. The Government should be bold on this subject. They should try to devolve real financial powers to mayoralties, and they should enable the big mayors to borrow money to finance financial projects they think are worth while.
As someone who in my political life has spent 20 years on local authorities, I would also like to see a great emphasis on reviving local government, probably with some reform of council tax—again, a long-term project, but Burnham has talked about land value taxation—and getting rid of capping, which restrains what local authorities can do and has basically destroyed the independence of local government.
I also believe that the Prime Minister is right to say that our politics needs reform. I believe in politicians working together. We cannot address long-term issues that we face, such as social care and climate change, unless we establish some degree of political consensus. Electoral reform is one way of doing this.
Thirdly, the Prime Minister is a strong pro-European. One thing I admired about him was that he came out and said that Brexit has been a disaster—and it has been a disaster. The starting point for putting that right is to be honest with the public about what the losses have been. That is the crucial thing that Burnham is doing in his approach to Europe, and while it is right that he sticks to Labour’s manifesto pledges that were made for this Parliament, at some point we should be bold about what the objective we are seeking on Europe is, and I hope he will have the courage to do that.
Lord Frost (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I am glad that the noble Lord, Lord Liddle, raised the question of Europe, because it probably will not surprise those listening to learn that I intend to say a word about that, too. I intend to say a word about it not just because I am deeply interested in it but because the new Government, the Prime Minister and his Ministers do not seem to have said a huge amount about this subject, either in the Prime Minister’s Statement earlier this week or in PMQs.
Policy has swung around a bit. We heard during the Makerfield by-election that the PM wants to rejoin, and perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Liddle, hopes that that will be the outcome of this rethink one day. Since then, the Government have retreated from it. The noble Baroness the Leader of the House yesterday said:
“We are not going to rerun the argument on Brexit in the near future”.—[Official Report, 2/9/26; col. 180.]
I suppose that leaves open the question of what “in the near future” actually means.
There seems a degree of uncertainty. On the one hand, the Government are claiming, as we just heard, that Brexit caused damage, and the Prime Minister said that too. Yet, at the same time, they are using and talking up the benefits of leaving the EU. As the noble Lord, Lord True, said yesterday, the Government are cutting VAT, which would not have been possible in the European Union, and the new Trade Minister, who gave an excellent maiden speech—I say that even though he is not in his place now—was out earlier this week celebrating accession to the CPTPP as a fantastic new opportunity for British business. Of course, none of that would be happening if we had not left the European Union. So, I am left a bit uncertain, I must admit, as to how the EU really fits into the hierarchy of priorities for the new Government. We have a new Minister in charge of the negotiations. What are we supposed to read into that?
All this uncertainty means it is sometimes a little unclear what is meant by comments on the reset. For example, the PM said this week that the country needs a good deal for farming. What does that mean? I thought there already was a deal for farming—it was announced in the summit last year. Does that mean he is doubtful about this deal? Is he uncertain that some of the protections—the carve-outs—that are needed will be secured in the negotiations? We simply do not know any of this, and that is the problem.
It is well beyond time for the Government to give a proper account of where things stand. The summit was over a year ago now, and each time there is an event or meeting in Brussels, it seems that the Government give away something, whether it is joining the ETS or the single electricity market. We learned this spring that concessions on student fees are in play, the nature of the youth mobility scheme, and so on.
It is not clear what we are getting back from any of this. I can tell you from my experience that the much-vaunted eGate access has not yet been delivered. Perhaps other noble Lords have had the same experience this summer. Arguably, the situation for British travellers is worse than it was a year ago.
The Government need to come clean about where things stand in this rather amateurish, Keystone Cops-style negotiation. We do not need a running commentary, but we do need a Statement on what the Government are trying to achieve. Will the Minister ask his ministerial colleagues to come to this House, or to the other place, and tell us what their approach to this negotiation is? What are they trying to do? Where are they trying to get to? Meanwhile, will the Government stop being pushed around and start standing up for the people and businesses of this country?
Baroness Gill (Lab)
My congratulations to my noble friend Lord Hunt of Kings Heath on securing this debate. This Government’s agenda marks a fundamental shift in how power and capital are distributed across the United Kingdom, positioning my old European constituency of the West Midlands and the second city of Birmingham as central drivers of national growth. By sweeping away decades of bureaucratic inertia and empowering the West Midlands to control its own wealth, transport and housing, the Government are unleashing the true potential of Britain’s industrial heartland.
I welcome that this Government are implementing a structural strategy to rewire the state through radical fiscal devolution and targeted regional investment through a multi-year £2.5 billion integrated settlement, and a committed 10-year retention of local business rates valued at £45 million annually. The Government are also granting the West Midlands Combined Authority and the mayor unprecedented financial autonomy. This will allow the region to manage its infrastructure independently, shifting funding away from rigid competitive bidding systems. This autonomy is already driving visible outcomes in local infrastructure, such as backing a rapid transition to bring the West Midlands bus network back under local public control, supported by a £35 million bus service improvement plan grant, which will work alongside the nationwide £2 single fare cap to lower commuting costs and link residents directly to employment plans, as my noble friend Lord Hunt outlined earlier.
I turn now to a subject closer to my heart: the regional housing crisis. The Government have injected a landmark £1.7 billion into West Midlands social housing. This funding scales up the region’s existing affordable housing framework, which has already surpassed targets by delivering 7,237 new homes in its first localised phase. However, to solve this housing crisis, we must look at the entire life cycle of a home, and I urge the Government and the Minister here today to help older homeowners, the empty nesters, to downsize and free 15 million surplus bedrooms. Therefore, I urge the Minister to consider a targeted exemption of stamp duty. On a household level, the abolition of the 5% VAT rate on domestic electricity bills offers immediate financial breathing room to families across the West Midlands.
Crucially, the economic strategy focuses on high-value industrial revival. The newly formed Midlands defence growth deal integrates local academic institutions, advanced manufacturing firms and regional government into a single ecosystem. This initiative aims to inject billions into local supply chains and create 38,000 highly skilled engineering and technology jobs across the region. To sustain this growth, the Government are introducing the West Midlands Works initiative, a comprehensive, 10-year employment plan designed to train and place 93,000 residents into stable, high-quality jobs. This is supported by an educational shift that grants 14 year-olds early access to technical qualification pipelines and direct employment needs. This agenda is a 10-year blueprint for economic resilience. It is a sharp break from the managed decline of the past, a definitive blueprint to ensure that the engine room of the UK economy is finally fired up, self-sustaining and built to win.
Lord Newby (LD)
My Lords, I wish to discuss two crucial components of the Prime Minister’s programme for growth: the devolution agenda in England and our relationship with the EU. For decades, I have advocated greater devolution of powers to Yorkshire, so I greatly welcome moves to shift decision-making out of Whitehall. I have, however, two principal concerns over what the Government are currently proposing.
First, while it is relatively clear how an existing large mayoral authority such as Birmingham or Manchester could be given and realistically manage greater powers, the position elsewhere is very much less clear-cut. The Prime Minister has said that devolution deals will be possible even without an elected mayor, as may happen in Cornwall, but if there are a plethora of types of devolved authority, as there inevitably will be, this has the potential for considerable muddle and confusion. While the PM has a pretty good idea how his new settlement will benefit Manchester, I simply do not believe that any such clarity exists for much of the rest of England. In North Yorkshire, for example, where I live, expectations have been raised, but it is as yet completely unclear under current proposals how they might be realised.
Secondly, the Prime Minister has said that, under the new “No. 10 North” arrangements, he will be the person in charge of driving the growth agenda. In the short term this may be good news, in that only prime ministerial authority is likely to be able to prise powers away from the Treasury; but in the longer term, it is worrying. What happens if the next Prime Minister has a constituency hundreds of miles from Manchester, and, unlike today—with no fewer than nine members of the Cabinet having constituencies within an hour’s travel from Manchester—both he and his senior colleagues have other priorities? The present institutional changes do not look robust enough to survive such a scenario, and the whole devolution agenda therefore appears to be built on pretty shaky foundations. Although the ill-fated Department of Economic Affairs of the 1960s has given the idea of a separate ministry for growth a bad name, it seems implausible that, without some such permanent body, a significant long-term focus on growth of the kind the Prime Minister is promoting will be maintained.
The other element of the growth agenda relates to our relations with Europe. The Prime Minister has said little about the EU. In his Statement, he said only that Brexit had economically been very damaging, which is hardly news, but the new Government do not appear to have any new substantive proposals for strengthening our economic relationship with the EU. The Prime Minister appears to recognise that, unless we move towards the single market and the customs union, hopes for strong growth in the EU are likely to be mere pipe dreams, yet there seems to be no real ambition to move in that direction.
I wish the new Prime Minister well and I support much of what he is trying to achieve, but I am afraid that as yet I am unconvinced that he has well thought-out plans for doing so.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, on bringing this debate. I also want to apologise to him, because I am always surprised by how passionately he talks about climate change. That is on me. Sorry about that. It is wonderful to listen to.
I have met the new Prime Minister a few times and I have a lovely photograph on my phone of him and me at Glastonbury last year. I sort of thought we could work together, but the more I see what is happening and going through, the more I am beginning to think it will not be possible. It seems as if the slow-moving, stagnant mechanism of government has got its claws into him and he is not thinking very creatively any more. I hope I am wrong. We shall see over the next few weeks and months.
I want to mention three things that are crucial for the future of this Labour Government, which will all help society as well as the environment. We have to accept that climate chaos is the new normal. Thousands of people died this summer in the heat and that is going to keep happening if we are not very careful about adapting to it. People arriving at A&E with heat exhaustion and so on is also going to be the new normal. This Government must not make it worse by going ahead with the Jackdaw gas field and Rosebank oil field. That is folly. What they should be doing is what they have just scrapped—putting solar panels on every supermarket car park and every roof, everywhere they possibly can. That is the sort of thing they ought to be doing to be creative about combating climate change. We need to adapt to hot summers. A tiny measure would be to put shutters on all the windows, as in France. I have lots of ideas and I am quite happy to chat them through.
The second thing is to help save the NHS, not by privatising it but by remembering that prevention is better than cure. If you cut pollution, you cut the number of people going into hospital. You cut the number of children whose lungs are so stunted by pollution that they have lifelong problems with their breathing. Well done to Sadiq Khan here in London, where he has massively cut air pollution. We should have low emission zones across the whole country, as they do in mainland Europe.
Thirdly, one big way to reduce pollution would be to take the water companies into public ownership. The Prime Minister mentioned those words yesterday. I would like to think he means renationalisation, but I do not know any more, because he keeps changing his mind. I have stopped paying the sewage part of my bill. I asked Thames Water how much that part was. I was happy to pay for the water, obviously, but I was not prepared to pay for the sewage it was dumping in the Thames. It told me that it did not work out the bill like that, so at the moment I am not paying my bill. We will see if it takes me to court before it goes bankrupt. We stopped the poll tax with a campaign of non-payment. Civil disobedience is possibly the only way to fight companies such as the water companies which are operating in a way that is a disbenefit to the whole of society. I say to the Government that the Green Party always has loads of very practical ideas and I am very happy to share them.
Lord Davies of Brixton (Lab)
It is a treat to be able to take part in this debate. I will talk about the Government’s programme on pensions, where the scale of what is being undertaken and what is potentially in prospect is far greater than people appreciate. We have already had one pensions Bill. I did not agree with everything in it, but it is leading to major changes in the way that pensions are provided.
We have, in a sense, seen the end of a 30-year experiment in personal pensions. Pensions are becoming collective, and the emphasis on collective defined contribution schemes, the consolidation of existing arrangements, the removal of small pots and so on signifies a significant change in the way that pensions are being provided. We have also seen the Government introduce measures that could help members and employers with the release of so-called scheme surpluses. That is another debate, but the money is there and should be used productively to grow the economy and improve members’ benefits.
We have issues specifically in relation to personal pensions, where existing arrangements can now be consolidated and provide more effective investment arrangements for individuals. We are also getting what are called default pathways for retirement. The biggest and hardest problem in pensions is what to do, if you are in a defined contribution arrangement, with the money at retirement. The Government are taking good action there to ensure that people have straightforward arrangements to achieve a decent income in retirement.
That is all important, but we now have the Pensions Commission. Although the Government have made no formal commitment, we know that the commission’s timetable permits another pensions Bill, to which I look forward with some relish, not in the current Session but in the next one, and that will have to address the issue of adequacy. That is the missing part of the debate; it is what the commission has been set up to establish, and it is what we will have to confront. I think there will be big debates over that.
At the same time, we will have to take decisions about the state retirement age. Governments of both sides have, in practice, dodged the decision there. I have strong views that are maybe not in line with those held by many. The challenge is to provide incomes for people who can no longer work as ably as younger people, so the retirement age is clearly an issue.
The third and final leg of that debate will be state pension increases. What is going to follow the triple lock? Just saying “keep the triple lock” does not satisfy the need to get a stable financial system. We have to have that debate. I am afraid that, so far, people have sought to dodge that debate rather than address it.
Baroness Hazarika (Lab)
My Lords, one thing that I felt incredibly encouraged by with our new Prime Minister was the fact that he seemed to come here with an outside lens, because he has been away from Westminster for 10 years. When he came into Westminster, he was able to voice a lot of the frustrations that we all share in our lives. We all hear it from our friends and our neighbours. I, as a radio presenter, hear it a lot from my listeners. Lots of people outside just cannot get their head around why we here in Westminster continually, decade after decade, fail to get things done for this country.
I think tribalism is holding back much of the success of this country. I really like one of the things that the Prime Minister said, to which the noble Baroness, Lady Royall, alluded, about problem-solving over point-scoring. I am very proud to be associated with these Benches, but I try to look at things with fairness and not be tribal.
In that spirit, I begin by saying that I profoundly disagree with people on my own side who dismiss the Russian threat as being nothing but NATO fiction. That is absolutely not the case. These threats are real and they are here. Look at Leipzig Airport just in the last few days. I really hope that we can work across politics to build a national conversation about the threats and about the psychology we might need to face if things escalate, and resilience. We need to think about bringing back the War Book to make sure local authorities are properly prepared. Defence has got to be a priority.
Of course, growth must be a priority as well. We can get captured in these torturous, polarised discussions around the economy, where the right say, “Just cut welfare”, and the left say, “Just raise taxes”. We all know that just doing both of those things is not going to give us the result we want. We have to have a more intelligent conversation. We need growth and to help small and medium-sized businesses. I really hope that this new Chancellor in particular will seek to make life a bit better. We have heard this phrase “breathing space”; let us give a bit of breathing space to some of our small businesses around the country.
Another reason why I think people feel dismayed with the country right now is that they look around and feel that the social contract is broken, because of what is happening in their communities. There is a lot of anti-social behaviour. It is called low-level crime, but it is not low-level because of the blight that it causes to the lives of so many people. Just look at what has been happening in Middlesbrough; that story is replicated all around the country. Shops have become a war zone for people: I am sure we will be hearing from the noble Lord, Lord Walker, about the excellent work that he does with Iceland; and the noble Lord, Lord Barber, has talked very eloquently about the pressures that shop workers face. A lot of people feel that the country does not work for them because they see it in their high streets and in their everyday world.
I want to end on this kind of tonal note. I think we all have a responsibility to try to fix this country. I could be very tribal, and we could all point-score and slag each other off, but we are not going to succeed until we find some common ground. We on the left often get accused of virtue signalling—sometimes that does have some merit and sometimes we do go over the top—but some on the other side can be accused of vice signalling. Be honest: making disabled people poorer is not going to make us a richer, happier society, but we have to get more people who can work into work, as well.
This is a very timely debate. I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, and I look forward to the rest of the contributions.
Lord Oates (LD)
My Lords, I am delighted to follow the excellent, eloquent speech from the noble Baroness, Lady Hazarika, which I agree with entirely. Today, I want to focus on the justice system and, in particular, the contrast between the crisis in the adult justice system and the many successes achieved by creative policy-making in the youth justice system.
The prisons, as we read every day, are overflowing. The courts have huge backlogs, with cases currently being listed as far ahead as 2029 and 2030. Recalls to prison are at unprecedented levels. Some 51,000 prisoners were recalled in the 12 months to March—a 28% increase on the year before. In the January to March quarter, more prisoners were recalled than were released for the first time ever and, as the noble Baroness, Lady Royall, said, many of these cases are not because of people committing new offences; they are people who have chaotic lives after being released from prison and perhaps have not attended a probation hearing or whatever. We really need to get to grips with that. Prisoner releases have become the latest political football to be kicked to and fro. This is a problem we all own; all our parties own it.
Over the past decades, we have had a legacy of rhetoric driving up sentence length and prison numbers despite falling crime rates. This has been combined with a failure to build the prison places required to soak up the inevitable outcome of that sort of increase in sentencing levels. But that is not necessary at all. This is not normal. Our levels of incarceration are not normal. We do not have higher crime levels, on average, than most of our European counterparts, yet we are incarcerating people at double the rate of places such as Germany and at an even higher rate compared with the Scandinavian countries.
By contrast, the youth justice system is one of the greatest public policy successes of the past 30 years. It is the subject of my Private Member’s Bill, which will have its Second Reading next Friday so, like my noble friend Lady Sheehan, I am taking the opportunity to raise some of the points here, as some noble Lords might not be able to be there next week. When I worked at the Youth Justice Board shortly after it came into existence, the number of children in the juvenile secure estate peaked at over 3,500. In June this year, there were fewer than 350 in the secure estate—a reduction that has been achieved while youth crime has reduced.
That is a remarkable achievement by any standard, particularly when the adult system was going in the opposite direction. It was achieved by the creative, innovative policy-making of the 1997 Labour Government in establishing the Youth Justice Board and the youth offending teams. One might have expected the incoming Government to seek to apply some of the lessons of the youth justice system to the crisis of the adult system. Instead, they have chosen to abolish the Youth Justice Board in all but name. The noble Lord, Lord Whitty, referred to Treasury old favourites. This is an old favourite of the Ministry of Justice and the Treasury, and it should be resisted. I hope that the new Prime Minister will take a new approach to this.
Baroness Maclean of Redditch (Con)
My Lords, the Government have told us repeatedly that their number one priority is growth, and I am sure that every single one of us in this House would wholeheartedly back that aim. But I am afraid that there is a startling gap between those words and a real understanding of the people who create that growth. As we know on this side of the House, wealth is not created in Whitehall or No. 10 North; it is created when somebody takes a risk, when an entrepreneur decides to start a business, to put their own or their family’s capital at risk, to take on another member of staff, to buy a new plant or equipment or to make a new investment—or when an international investor chooses Britain rather than somewhere else. Increasingly, those people are looking around the world and making choices about where to invest.
That matters because our public finances are extraordinarily dependent on a relatively small number of taxpayers. In our country, the top 1% of income tax payers contribute around 28% of all income tax. This is not the usual scare story about millionaires leaving Britain; I am not talking about that. I am talking about the fact that, when a wealthy person leaves Britain, we potentially lose a disproportionately large taxpayer, as well as an investor, employer or entrepreneur.
The Office for Budget Responsibility itself has warned about this. It has warned of our increasing reliance upon this small and very mobile group of taxpayers. It has flagged it as a fiscal risk for the Government. The company BDO found that two-thirds of ultra-high-net-worth individuals surveyed had considered leaving the UK for tax reasons during the previous year. I know that many of us have seen that in our own personal lives. We all have friends and acquaintances and know young people who are thinking in that way, unfortunately.
To me, the most interesting finding was not just that those people said their priority was having lower tax, but that they prioritised certainty and stable government. That really should tell the Government something. Part of the problem, unfortunately, is the lack of business experience. Private sector and entrepreneurial experience are at the heart of government. If your experience is just of politics and the private sector or NGOs, it is so easy to think about business as a cash cow that can be milked, as though it will not change its behaviour and will continue filling the Treasury’s coffers. Anyone who has run a business knows that there comes a point when the numbers do not add up, the investment is not made, the extra person is not employed. You do not get 40% of a greater pot; you just get a smaller pot, and the business goes bust and ceases to exist.
We all agree that successful people should pay more tax, and they are. But there is a fundamental difference between taxing wealth once it has been created and creating the conditions for successful businesses to start in the first place, whereby people actually want to create that wealth. Capital is mobile; talented people do have choices. Every founder who chooses an overseas country is going to bring wealth and growth to that country, not ours. That is where we are losing out in revenues to our public sector.
There are only two ways of improving our public finances: we can keep asking those people to pay more, or we can make the economy bigger. There is nothing bad about wealth creation; we should be encouraging it. It is the only way we get better hospitals, schools, roads and everything else people want to see. The Government say they want growth: they must demonstrate that they understand the people who create it.
Lord Walker of Broxton (Lab)
My Lords, I declare an interest as executive chairman of Iceland Foods and of Bywater. As the former Prime Minister’s cost of living champion, I advocated targeted help for families who could not absorb soaring bills, and it is good to see some of those ideas come to fruition. But that is just applying a sticking plaster; we cannot cure the underlying disease with yet another subsidy or benefit. This Government’s top priority must be getting Britain back to work. One in every seven households has no one in work: not a single adult earning a wage. A million children live in long-term workless homes, more than a quarter of those in households where no one, not once, has ever worked.
Now is the time to turn things around by giving businesses the confidence to invest. Our new Prime Minister says he wants a pro-business Government. He needs the courage to deliver on that. Start with the October Budget, shift the tax burden away from jobs and productive investment, cut the cost of employing people and give more high street businesses relief on rates. A growing private sector will do more to relieve poverty than any support programme ever can. Now is the time to make brave decisions on welfare and, dare I say it, the triple lock.
I started my business career in Poland and have watched with admiration as it has grown almost as rich per capita as Britain. Indeed, it is soon likely to overtake us. We should follow its formula: encourage investment, build infrastructure, develop skills, attract businesses and pursue integration into global supply chains. As a father I am horrified that, as we have heard, we have almost 1 million 16 to 24 year-old NEETs. We are complicit in allowing them to enter adulthood without the structure, confidence, skills, friendships and sense of purpose that only work can provide.
Of course I believe that the state must support those who are ill, disabled or otherwise unable to work. But the welfare state should be a safety net and a springboard, not a system that leaves people who can work parked on benefits. We need to create a smoother pathway from school into work, meaning more apprenticeships, vocational training and work experience. The Prime Minister’s focus on creating more work placements is welcome, but businesses will deliver far more if the barriers that currently deter them from hiring are simply removed. This means lowering the cost of creating jobs, helping businesses invest in skills, cutting red tape and making sure that work always pays. Do that and Britain will get a triple dividend. People will move from welfare to wages, and the benefits bill will fall while tax revenues rise. Businesses will gain the people and skills they need to grow, and a generation currently being offered too little hope will get a stake in our country’s future. Britain cannot redistribute its way to prosperity. Like Poland, we must build our way there.
Earl Russell (LD)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, for securing this debate, and I welcome his contribution. I will focus on energy and climate. This Government have an opportunity for a reset. The British people support change, but this Government have to do more to enable it. Nowhere is that clearer than on energy. Labour deserves credit for delivering enough renewable energy, through two successful record-breaking auctions, to supply the equivalent of 23 million homes. However, our energy bills remain among the highest in Europe. There has been no fundamental energy market reform. The Climate Change Committee’s citizens’ panel shows that people support the transition to net zero, provided the Government play their part: grants for heat pumps, better public transport and EV charging, and clear phase-out dates. Yet heat pumps and electric vehicles remain well behind target and too expensive for far too many. The transition being offered is not yet affordable, equitable or fair.
Greenpeace UK’s Power Shift report, for example, shows that moving gas-fired power stations into a strategic reserve could save households and businesses £5.1 billion a year by 2028—a £65 saving off the average household bill. We need cheaper electricity by removing levies, and we need a social tariff. The new Energy Secretary, Miatta Fahnbulleh, is a trained economist and former chief of the New Economics Foundation. That gives me hope that she will grasp the urgent need for fundamental energy market reforms. Labour must do more to back community energy so that everyone can participate in and benefit from the energy transition.
Europe is the fastest-warming continent on earth, and we are not prepared. Summer 2026 was the UK’s hottest on record. It was made around 130 times more likely by human-induced climate change. England had its driest July ever. Across Europe, extreme heat was linked to at least 35,000 excess deaths. The UK Health Security Agency estimated that 2,877 deaths occurred in the May and June heatwaves alone. The London Ambulance Service recorded its busiest day in its history on 26 June. Nurses fainted in hospital wards where temperatures exceeded 30 degrees—conditions the Royal College of Nursing called “inhumane”. The UK is on track for its worst harvest since records began, threatening our food security and pushing up prices.
The Climate Change Committee’s 2025 adaption report found that not a single outcome is rated as good. Adaption has been forgotten by all Governments. The time when we can afford to forget is over. Nature remains the missing element in this Government’s agenda. Confused policies, compounded by poor communications, erode trust. Wildfires worsen every year. The National Fire Chiefs Council has called for an emergency summit and greater resources. A Written Answer to me confirmed that the UK is entirely dependent on commercial aviation to fight wildfires; that has to change urgently before the super El Niño arrives. Mega-fires are on our doorstep, and we are not prepared to contain them.
The UK cannot lead globally while cutting overseas aid. We need a road map back to 0.7%. Ed Miliband must show that this Government take global climate finance seriously. The British people overwhelmingly accept the reality of our warming planet and support change. The Government must enable that change. Labour must take people with them and work with them, not do things to them. The transition must work for everyone, or it will work for no one.
Baroness Nargund (Lab)
My Lords, I congratulate my noble friend Lord Hunt on securing this important debate, and on his excellent opening speech. On entering No. 10, our new Prime Minister said:
“Let’s make this the moment when Britain starts to believe again—the moment we bring back hope”.
That has been mentioned several times today. That spirit was clear in his commitment during the Recess to tackling social care through cross-party talks.
What is striking about this Government’s priorities is their willingness to confront Britain’s hardest problems head-on, placing the country first. Health now needs a similar approach. The manifesto commitment promising a fairer Britain where everyone lives well for longer, when we have the gap in healthy life expectancy between the richest and poorest regions in our country, has never been more urgent. A child born in Richmond upon Thames can now expect nearly 20 more years in good health than one born in Hartlepool or Blackpool. A recent campaign by Health Equals has revealed a gap between postcodes of 18 years between the longest and shortest life expectancy in the UK.
The DHSC alone cannot close these gaps, and we should stop treating it as if it is the sole responsibility of the National Health Service. There is now an irrefutable case for a cross-governmental health board or a Cabinet sub-committee reporting directly to the Prime Minister, chaired by a senior Cabinet Minister and, crucially, with strong regional representation. Devolution offers a brilliant opportunity to deliver this in every region. The Health Bill now in the other place offers a genuine opportunity to put that understanding to work.
Health does not start in the NHS; it starts where we are born, where we live and where we work, and depends on whether we can access decent housing. That is why the Prime Minister’s pledge to end homelessness is so significant. Homelessness is not simply a housing failure; it is one of the starkest health inequalities we have. The Social Housing Bill, giving the tools to build more social homes locally, is not just an answer to our housing and homelessness crisis; it is a preventive health intervention.
I will leave noble Lords with one further thought: if the health of people in the north of England matched that of those in the rest of England, it could generate an additional £18.4 billion a year to the UK economy. This is not just a moral case; it is an economic one. Health needs to be at the heart of the Government’s priorities and central to their legislative agenda, giving power back to local communities and tackling the health disparities that hold our country back. That is why I back all these priorities wholeheartedly.
Labour created the NHS to care for our health; it is now Labour that can strengthen the NHS by tackling what creates ill health in the first place. Will the Government consider setting up a cross-governmental health board or a Cabinet sub-committee to address the wider determinants of health and to create a more equal Britain?
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Baroness—
Baroness Rafferty (Lab)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow my noble friend Lady Nargund. The Prime Minister reiterated his commitment to social care in his response to questions on his Statement to the Commons on Tuesday. While we wait for the recommendations from the review by the noble Baroness, Lady Casey, there are opportunities to build on the important steps the Government have already taken to raise the profile of, and boost much-needed capacity in, social care nursing.
One of the signal achievements of the previous Administration was the passage of the Employment Rights Act and, within that, the establishment of the fair pay agreement. The potential impact of this development should not be underestimated. It seeks to elevate the status, as well as the terms and conditions, of those working in social care, shining a light on those on the margins of care with no representation or negotiating power to improve their lot. This is to be welcomed as the social care sector employs some 1.5 million people. It has a huge economic footprint, even though most workers earn just above the minimum wage—“poverty pay”, as the Prime Minister commented on Tuesday. I argue that the potential to boost the earning power and the career and professional development of social care workers, and therefore the attractiveness of one of the largest sectors of employment in the UK, is the adult equivalent of reducing child poverty by removing the two-child cap. Let us also not forget that most care workers are women, and any boost to wages can bolster household incomes.
The fair pay agreement could provide a much-needed stimulus for nursing reform. The most recent estimates from Skills for Health record some 37,000 nurse registrants in the sector. Concentrated mainly in care homes, registered nurses carry heavy responsibilities. Adult social care pay has lagged far behind that of the NHS. This fair pay agreement will hopefully link responsibility to reward and begin to align social care pay with that of the NHS.
The Earl of Effingham (Con)
My Lords, I have two minutes so I will be brief. First, on UK debt and financing it, as my noble friend Lady Coffey put so well, the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, spent half his speech talking about the Opposition and, for whatever reason, certain noble Lords opposite wish to attribute to them the current national debt pile. It is there, it is not going away and simply blaming others for its existence and looking backwards, not forwards, solves zero. It is critical that it is reduced by every Government. The noble Baronesses, Lady Hazarika and Lady Royall, were spot on when they said that this is about problem-solving together, not point-scoring.
My noble friend Lord Redwood knows what he is talking about. You need to respect the global bond markets. Bond yields and financing costs are at multidecade highs. The Prime Minister has spent the summer making welcome spending commitments but without explaining in any shape or form how they will be funded. We need clarification. If the markets have certainty, borrowing costs will be lowered and, ultimately, hard-working people will benefit.
Secondly, on taxes and spending, will the noble Lord, Lord Collins, listen to the Prime Minister’s friend and adviser, the noble Lord, Lord O’Neill of Gatley? The noble Lord is a globally recognised and respected economist who said only last week that if Ministers raise taxes, it will show that
“they’re not thinking about growth as sincerely as they claim”.
The noble Lord, Lord Walker of Broxton, was entirely correct when, in a previous debate, he agreed that he supports the Labour Party, not the “Benefits Party”. Will the Minister listen to the advice of the noble Lords, Lord Walker and Lord O’Neill, and cut the welfare bill?
Finally, we have heard about GDP from this Government and from the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, in his opening remarks. But as my noble friend Lord Hintze, one of the world’s most respected fund managers, often reminds the Government, we should be looking at GDP per capita. It is more important for measuring individual living standards than GDP. Please will the Government consider that? It is a benchmark universally agreed by economists as the measure of individual living standards.
Lord Purvis of Tweed (LD)
I remain happy to have followed the noble Baroness, Lady Nargund, who reminded us of the blight in our country: the extreme levels of difference in social deprivation from postcode to postcode. This is also an urban-rural issue. If the Prime Minister is to be successful, it will be about not just growth in every postcode but reducing the blight of inequality of opportunity that so many of our communities face. I am glad that the noble Baroness raised that in the debate.
I am also glad that the Labour Whips responded positively to a suggestion from these Benches that, when we came back after the Summer Recess, it would be an appropriate time to consider the statements by the new Prime Minister and some of the priorities that he has outlined. We congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, on opening this debate and giving a very good fist to the arguments of the new ministerial team. He is to be commended on doing that so clearly. I reflected yesterday in the Chamber, when we were asking questions to the Leader of the House on the Prime Minister’s Statement, that in the 13 years I have been in this House, there have been seven Prime Ministers with an average tenure of just 21 months. This is an underlying symptom of some of the challenges we have in our political system, which I will refer to in a moment.
I join the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, in thanking Sir Keir Starmer for his service. It is a curious aspect of our system in politics in Britain that someone is a terrible politician and a disaster shortly before they resign, then after that they are a great public servant with a very proud record of service. Nevertheless, we thank Keir Starmer for his work, and we wish him well with whatever new role he carries out.
Yesterday, I went through the areas in which the first speech of the new Prime Minister was essentially the same as the first speech by Sir Keir Starmer as Prime Minister, but with a little more emotion and heart. I do not disregard emotion and heart in our politics; they are important parts of our government. But both Keir Starmer and Andy Burnham said in their first speeches that “words are not actions”. As my noble friend Lord Storey said, the tests are ahead for this new ministerial team, and we will all judge actions. In many of those areas, we are willing to work with the Government and the new ministerial team, and we are eager to see some actions. One of the early things that the new Prime Minister could do is to respond positively to the very clear appeal by my noble friend Lady Benjamin to finally restore justice to the community of victims whom I had the privilege of meeting with her. It is a scar on our country that the new Prime Minister can erase.
We have now had an opportunity to look at the first areas on which Mr Burnham said he wants to be judged: political reform and economic growth, with fewer costs in doing business. We share those priorities. These Benches are hungry for considerable political and constitutional reform—not for its own sake, but because, as I said, our system is failing. I suggest the great dividing lines in politics of our age, and the future, are less the rather sterile one of whether the economic policies of the 1970s were better or worse than 40 years later, as the Prime Minister has said. Instead, they are about tolerance and social cohesion, defence of institutions and the rule of law, protecting diversity and gender equality, and about those other forces, which are incredibly well funded and well organised, which are seeking to restrict, separate and blame communities for failings. These Benches and our Liberal International sister parties know that this division is global, not just here at home in the UK. It is why we work so closely with our sister parties, who are the Governments of Canada, Ukraine and Taiwan and are in the front line of these dividing lines in politics.
Our system of politics in this country is simply not resilient enough. Reform UK, for example, believes it is appropriate for a political system to receive influxes of untraceable crypto money but not appropriate for leaders of parties to be accountable for donations they receive. This is cancerous in our system. Elon Musk supporting Restore and the dark area of social media in which it is all too easy for foreign interference to corrupt our system need to be closed down. We will work with the Government to ensure that reforms to strengthen our system are in place. But, as my noble friend Lord Pack said yesterday and today, we have not yet seen that the Government want to go far enough and we look forward to the legislative proposals. We want to work constructively to ensure that all those loopholes are closed.
Another area in which, regrettably, there seems to be a dividing line is on the climate crisis. There should be no dividing line on this because, as my noble friend Lord Russell so soberingly outlined, and the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, indicated so eloquently, there needs to be consensus that this is a crisis of our age that needs to be tackled. We have a mainstream political party that seems to prevent anyone standing for it who believes that net zero needs to be tackled. These are statutory targets. The noble Lord, Lord Hunt, spoke eloquently on climate; we share his views. But one element that was disappointing in the first announcement by the new Prime Minister was that the cap on bus fares—unquestionably popular and, indeed, needed—was paid for by a cut in international climate finance. We therefore have a situation in which the first decision by the new Prime Minister was to cap bus fares in Britain and cut support for the poorest countries to replace filthy, polluting diesel buses in their cities. We will not be a trusted global partner if we make decisions such as this.
Yesterday, I asked the Leader what the new Prime Minister’s proposals were for electoral reform, and she responded that there was no mandate for that. There was very clearly not a mandate for the Labour Government cutting official development assistance to the lowest ever levels. That, I hope, can be restored by the new Prime Minister. I also make an appeal that on the international stage, where we are of course supporting Ukraine and are a trusted partner around the world, the new Prime Minister will be a leader on the worst humanitarian crisis on the planet, for which the UK is the United Nations penholder: Sudan.
The second area the Prime Minister said in his recent Financial Times interview he wanted was growth, and we support that. He said he wanted percentage points growth. The latest OECD growth forecast puts the UK equal third in the G7, at 0.9%. That is not a sufficient sustainable level of growth to balance our spending and debt pressures, which we have heard about in the debate. The noble Lord, Lord Pitt-Watson, referred on Tuesday to trade deals being part of the Government’s growth strategy, but post-Brexit trade deals barely reach more than a third of 1% growth after 15 years, and the Government’s recent reset approach on SPS and other areas, welcome though it is, also represents, on the Government’s own estimate, a third of 1%. My noble friend Lord Newby appealed to the Government to think more ambitiously about our relationship with Europe. It is very disappointing that the new Prime Minister did not take that opportunity to ditch the red lines, which are a straitjacket on our growth with our European partners.
Finally, we will work with the Government on other areas. We have already seen, as my noble friend Lady Sheehan said, some welcome moves on tackling the blight of waste and on supporting the hospitality sector. We will want to see the Government working on water industry accountability but we need clarity on what their intentions are for Thames Water. I hope that the Minister will be able to just circumvent all this and say that he will support my noble friend Lady Sheehan’s Private Member’s Bill, which will go a long way towards that—and, while we are at it, he can support my noble friend Lord Oates’s Private Member’s Bill on youth justice too. That would be a very good signal of the new Government’s intent.
Over the summer we welcomed very much the Prime Minister reaching out to Ed Davey on care—that was mentioned yesterday. If there are signs that there is a new type of politics for the remainder of this Parliament, as the noble Baroness, Lady Hazarika, indicated, working on a cross-party basis to move towards some degree of consensus on social care is necessary. We know that decisions which may be difficult will have to be made, and they will be sustainable only if they are built on consensus. Ed Davey and these Benches want to play our part.
We welcome the approach of the new Prime Minister in these areas. We will be pushing for further, faster reforms to our political system and our European relationship for growth. We want to improve lives and make the reforms sustainable—and we hope that the Prime Minister will last longer than the average tenure of 21 months to deliver that.
Lord True (Con)
My Lords, it has been an excellent debate—there I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, who I always attempt to agree with but sometimes fall short, for which I apologise. I may do so later in these brief remarks.
Like so many others, I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, for introducing the debate. He is a good and brave parliamentarian and a good Labour man, and was a fine Minister, and I thank him for doing this today. As he knows, I wanted to have effective scrutiny of the Government’s political priorities and legislative agenda before the summer. We did not get that. I am glad that is happening today but I say, with the greatest respect, that it should have been a government Motion. The Government are so proud of their agenda—they should bring that Motion and make the time here. I apologise for referring to it but, frankly, the Cabinet member in this House, the Leader of the House, should be present to address these questions. The noble Lord, Lord Collins, is an outstanding Member—we came along to this gin joint at about the same time—and he will give a good account, but this House must be taken seriously at the highest level and it should not be left to a Back-Bencher to initiate this.
When Ministers avoid scrutiny, the whole country is left in limbo. The longer we are in the dark on policies, the longer markets remain frozen and fearful. This is a problem for our country, as we are seeing.
The noble Lord, Lord Hunt, picked out several themes, the first of which was planning. I think we all agree that planning is far too sclerotic. I am not certain that mayors are necessarily the answer. The most major planning application in my borough, which went in more than 10 years ago and has only just been determined, was held up for about five years by the Mayor of London faffing around, intervening and changing his mind all the time. It is not a panacea. Devolution is now a good buzzword but, as a local government person, I am concerned that we must never lose sight that local government should be local. Instinctively, I understand that our new Prime Minister, with his role in Manchester, in the sense that Manchester is a real place or group of places, may feel that the whole country can be run in this way. The noble Lord, Lord Newby, had some wise things to say about the patchwork of communities. In this drive for devolution, we must be careful that we do not lose local accountability and local feeling.
Of course, we all agree on getting people back to work. Many noble Lords have spoken about the tragedy of young people who do not have a job. The same is true of social care. We on this side did co-operate on and respond to the suggestion that there should be cross-party discussions. I hope it happens. I regretted that, when the noble Baroness, Lady May, was Prime Minister and put forward proposals on social care, before the morning had passed they had been condemned by other parties as a dementia tax and the whole thing was mobilised against the Conservative Party for electoral benefit. A bit of repentance all round and a new resolve to work together would be something we could all join in on.
I thought the noble Lord was remarkably optimistic in his analysis of the present economic situation. I will come back to that at the end. It is not shared by many observers, nor by everybody who has spoken in the debate.
There have been some very interesting speeches on particular subjects. The noble Lord, Lord Purvis, was quite right to say that the noble Baroness, Lady Benjamin, deserves an answer to her question on Windrush. I thought that what the noble Baroness, Lady Hazarika, said about low-level crime was very important. I am hearing encouraging things, not only from the Government but in my own party. It amazes me that we see what is going on in California—the crazy decisions they take and the social consequences—but we do the same here. Why should we be surprised? We have seen what happens. If you avert your eyes to low-level crime, you get more of it.
The noble Lord, Lord Eatwell, made a powerful intervention on science, as did the noble Baroness, Lady Keeley, on music. I had a useless liberal education in classics, but I think we sometimes overlook that a liberal, or non-specific, education is very important. I agreed with those speeches.
The important issue of defence was mentioned by several noble Lords—the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Coffey and Lady Hazarika. We wait to hear how the Government’s commitments will be put into effect. The Prime Minister has said that this will be made clear at the time of the Budget. There must be a clear path to real targets because there is a threat from Russia. There is an international danger, and we have to work together on this as we have on Ukraine. I very much welcome that the Prime Minister has reiterated our joint commitment to Ukraine. I hope very much that he will scrap the shameful pursuit of veterans for past offences. I would like to hear from the noble Lord opposite that there will be a review of that planned programme of legislation that is putting the trust between the state and our Armed Forces at risk.
Europe was mentioned with varying degrees of rapture—predictably high from the noble Lord, Lord Liddle, and the Liberal Democrat Benches, and with more scepticism elsewhere. The noble Lord, Lord Frost, said something really important which we should all share. We need clarity. What is the path? What is the negotiating mandate? What are the objectives and what are we going to give away? The Government, in this and many other things, are leaving the world unclear, and that needs to be clarified.
On constitutional reform, there was of course great enthusiasm about the idea of electoral reform. The Prime Minister has said there needs to be a mandate for that. That mandate, if ever those ridiculous proposals are again put before the British people, must be backed by a referendum of the British people. That is essential.
Housing and homelessness came up on many occasions, led by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester. That is fundamental; we need more homes. We promised a million more homes in 2019, and we delivered on that objective. The Government are falling short on their objective, and I hope they will be able to improve that. Almost 100,000 fewer than were needed according to that target were actually delivered last year.
The fundamental issue is, “It’s the economy, stupid”. The noble Baroness, Lady Jones, was brave enough to say that said she disagreed with the idea of growth. I am surprised she is here, actually. I thought she would be in Holborn and St Pancras, campaigning. I suggest she needs a better candidate than—who is that chap?—Mr Polanski. I do not think he is going to appeal to many voters.
We must get growth. The noble Lord, Lord Walker, absolutely hit it on the nail: to get growth, we have to support business, restrain tax and reduce the burden on jobs. More state spending cannot create growth. State activity too often stunts growth. He made a speech that I would have been very happy to have heard from behind me, and I hope his colleagues read it carefully.
These are moments of difficulty. My noble friend Lord Redwood is absolutely right that the borrowing costs now, month after month and day after day, are higher than they were in the spike under Liz Truss. This is a serious burden for a deeply indebted country, and I strongly disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Liddle, that we want to add to the excessive borrowing we already have with a whole spate of local government borrowing.
We need to manage the economy with great care. We need to restrain spending, restrain borrowing, restrain taxation and release enterprise to incentivise family hopes and aspirations. If not, there is a danger we will get to a bad place. To send one Mr Healey to the IMF, as Labour did in 1976, was a misfortune, but to send another Mr Healey would look like carelessness. We know the dangers.
We wish the Prime Minister well, but as I said yesterday—and I do not need to repeat it—we are hearing too much of this 1970s language of more state, more tax, more nationalisation, more control and more intervention. That is not the way to a future. Let him be a bold, reforming Labour Prime Minister and have the courage to say something like Jim Callaghan said realistically to the Labour Party back in the 1970s: you cannot go on with state intervention, state spending, taxation and borrowing. We have to set the people free.
The Deputy Leader of the House of Lords (Lord Collins of Highbury) (Lab)
My Lords, we have had a great debate and I am looking forward to responding to all the wide-ranging points that have been made. I just say to the noble Lord, Lord True, that not only did the Prime Minister break a world record on Tuesday with a three-and-a-half-hour Statement setting out his priorities and being subject to questions, which he also did at PMQs, but we also had the repeat of the Statement yesterday, as the noble Lord said, which, again, the Leader answered questions on.
I was very pleased that the Labour Party, backed by the Chief Whip, focused on this subject in today’s debates. I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Hunt for bringing forward this debate. In effect, we have had five hours of debate today on the new programme of the new Prime Minister and the new Government. It is a great opportunity.
As the Prime Minister has set out, the Government’s agenda rests on four core areas: making Britain better off; putting power back into the hands of communities; giving people room to breathe; and tackling the most intractable problems so that Britain can believe in itself again.
First, we will permanently shift decision-making out of Westminster. I say to the noble Lord, Lord True, that that is not a return to the 1970s. We established No. 10 North in Manchester as an engine room for devolution and local growth. Decisions affecting local areas will be taken by local leaders who know their communities best, underpinned by fiscal devolution and rebalanced public investment.
I pay tribute to the comments made in this debate by the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey. She is absolutely right—we do have to empower local leaders and Ministers. Generally, this debate has been about how we bring people together to address the problems of the United Kingdom. That is a tribute to this House.
Secondly, the Government will drive reindustrialisation and good growth in every postcode. We will back British business and industry at every opportunity. We are the party of enterprise. We are the party of aspiration. Those are the sorts of missions that this Government are absolutely committed to.
Every pound of taxpayer spending will back British jobs, address skill shortages and support communities. We will support all parts of the country to take more public control over investment strategy, as my noble friend pointed out so well.
Thirdly, we will give communities room to breathe, with a 20% business rate discount for pubs, clubs and live music venues from April 2027, bus fares capped at £2 and VAT removed from electricity bills this winter.
Fourthly, the Government will tackle the systematic issues that, as the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester mentioned, have been ignored for too long: ending rough sleeping, decades of political drift on social care and the youth unemployment crisis, and building our way out of the housing crisis. I will come back to those issues later. We will continue to pass legislation underpinning our political priorities to deliver this change.
On spending, we are committed to fiscal discipline. I know the noble Lord, Lord True, wants details, but it is not my place to pre-empt the Chancellor. As my noble friend highlighted, the Government are on track to reduce borrowing more than any G7 country and will reprioritise existing spending and budgets where necessary.
I turn to some of the specific points made in the debate. My noble friend is absolutely right: planning has been a critical barrier to the necessary investments in our infrastructure. He asked me a specific question about the Fingleton recommendations. I reassure him that we committed in the King’s Speech to legislate in due course and that absolutely remains our position.
We do not want to continue with this period of speculation. That is why the Budget will be on 28 October and will be built on very strong fiscal discipline. We are not borrowing for day-to-day spending. We want to get debt falling as a percentage of GDP by the end of the forecast. As I said, we are on track to reduce borrowing more than any other country.
My noble friend Lord Davies is right. There has been very strong progress on pensions and on how pension funds can be used to drive that sort of growth to which we are committed. My noble friend Lord Eatwell raised a specific point about investment in science and technology. He is right. We have to address this. The problems that the STFC’s core budget has been affected by are energy costs, staff costs and unfavourable foreign exchange situations, but I reassure him that major international subscriptions, such as CERN, are being fully protected. The STFC will also generate more external income through supporting industrial partnerships, commercialisation and better use of its assets. The outcome published in July is a long-term, sustainable plan for the STFC with UKRI providing an additional £135 million, enabling programmes to realise the benefits of current investments as the STFC transitions to a long-term stable financial position.
I acknowledge my noble friend Lady Hazarika’s position, and I think it is reflected across the House. We are all committed to recognising the threats that we now face, and certainly our commitment to Ukraine has been on a cross-party basis. This House remains united. We know that that threat is serious, and I agree with my noble friend that the idea that Russia is not a threat is complete nonsense. We are committed to 3.5% of GDP on defence spending by 2035. The defence investment plan will be fully funded, and defence will be an engine for good jobs across the country. We have signed more than 1,400 major defence contracts, and 94% are with UK firms. We are ensuring that the need to spend on defence benefits communities across the United Kingdom. As my noble friend Lord Coaker reminded the House recently, we have had the biggest investment in military housing for half a century and the biggest pay rise for our Armed Forces.
I say to my noble friend Lord Hunt and other noble Lords, particularly my noble friend Lord Whitty, that we are committed to our climate change commitments and are investing £100 million in fire and rescue, with record levels of flood defences to ensure that we are adapting to the effects of climate change. This summer has shown the clear impact that climate change has had on our country.
On the point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Sheenan, I recognise waste dumping as an unmitigated disaster and a crime. The PM will set out a plan to shut down those criminal gangs. He has given a commitment to that plan. We have also given additional funding to tackle the three major illegal waste sites in the country.
I pay tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Benjamin, for consistently raising the Windrush scandal. My noble friend Lord Hanson has answered Questions from her on this issue. I understand the impact of the compensation scheme, but I am afraid I will have to write to her with a detailed response on that report. I cannot go further than that at this stage.
To pick up the point about health and social care, the Prime Minister has a clear ambition to work on a cross-party basis to end decades of political drift and reform of adult social care. Part of his mission is to tackle this issue that has been ignored for too long. As part of this, the noble Baroness, Lady Casey, is, as we know, chairing an independent commission into adult social care. In July, the Prime Minister announced that the publication of the Casey review will be brought forward by a year, to 2027, as well as work to go further on reform of the social care workforce, building on the fair pay agreement—a point raised by my noble friend Lady Rafferty. These two issues are linked. My noble friend Lady Royall raised the issue of the need for staffing, and my noble friend Lady Rafferty is right that we need to ensure that there is fair pay in social care, because that is how we retain people. It is an important step, alongside wider workforce reforms like the care workforce pathway, towards our longer-term ambition for a national care service.
That is why we are taking a deliberate and phased approach. It is important that reforms are implemented in a way that is affordable, deliverable and sustainable for the sector. The first fair pay agreement, backed by £500 million in funding, will lay the foundation for future agreements, so I welcome that contribution.
The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester raised the issue of homelessness. We have been very clear about the impact of that, and the Prime Minister has understood the urgent social priority to end rough sleeping, backed by a dedicated £442 million funding package—targeted funding established to offer everyone needing it a route off the streets by Christmas, as part of the core mission to tackle infrastructure.
Housing is a big issue, and we need to tackle the housing crisis and boost economic growth. There is £39 billion for social and affordable housing, with the first £10 billion having been allocated. I am glad that my noble friend Lady Taylor is here, because she has highlighted the importance of this to this House on numerous occasions. We have allocated £9.5 billion to deliver 70,000 homes, with 60% for social rent—the highest number of social rent completions since 2012. We have a very clear pathway on that.
In relation to the economy, our commitment to business and how we are focused on driving growth, particularly through devolution and giving local leaders that responsibility, we also understand the impact of unemployment, particularly youth unemployment. Our goal is getting people up for success, not paying for failure, so there is £3.5 billion for tailored employment support. Major changes will be made to technical education to give 14 year-olds access to skills and experience. We have just had a 2.5-hour debate on a number of those issues. Employment is at a near record high, having risen by 1 million since the election—the third highest employment rate in the G7. Economic inactivity is down, but the issue of those young people who are not in education, employment or training needs to be addressed. Some of the schemes are working. The £3,000 bonus for firms hiring long-term youth unemployed is just one example. It is important that we understand that.
A number of Lords, including the noble Lord, Lord Frost, have raised the issue of Europe. The Prime Minister has been very clear that we must be bolder in securing a closer relationship. The UK-EU summit this year is the right way to boost GDP and growth and to improve trade, defence and security. These things are not in isolation. That partnership with Europe is vital also to improving our security. As my noble friend the Leader said yesterday, this is not opening the door to a single market or customs union, but there is a way that we can improve our partnership to deliver the things that we need to ensure our economic growth and security.
The noble Lord, Lord True, mentioned some of the legislative changes in the programmes that we have had. There will be some changes in the details of Bills, as noble Lords would expect when there is a change in ministerial leadership, and ministerial colleagues will be keeping noble Lords updated in the usual way, including by tabling amendments.
On the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, about our democracy, as my noble friend Lady Taylor made clear yesterday, we are committed to making our democracy fairer, more secure and more resilient. We have accepted all the recommendations in Philip Rycroft’s review of foreign interference in our democracy earlier this year, and, as my noble friend made clear yesterday, our legislation is progressing through Parliament and will protect our elections and open up our democracy. A cap of £100,000 on political donations from overseas, protecting democracy from the surge of dirty money, and the ban on cryptocurrencies make this absolutely clear.
I reassure the noble Lord that our priority is a democracy that works for everyone everywhere, not just people in some places. The Prime Minister still supports electoral reform as part of that mission, but he understands that it is a big constitutional question and it is premature to legislate now. There needs to be a mandate, I reassure the noble Lord, Lord True. We have made clear that mandates are governed by manifestos, not by some spurious other form that can be invented at any other time.
I am running out of time, so if there are areas that have been raised but that I have not specifically addressed then I reassure noble Lords that I will write to them. This has been an incredibly useful debate, and I reassure the noble Lord, Lord True, that we are committed to working together to address the big issues that this country faces, particularly social care. However, the Prime Minister has set out his priorities for the country: making Britain better off, putting power back into the hands of community, giving people room to breathe and tackling the most intractable problems so that Britain can believe in itself again. I have outlined those issues.
I want to reassure noble Lords. I think it was the noble Lord, Lord Purvis, who said that 21 months has been the average term served by a Prime Minister. Let us be clear about this: there is an expectation out there that our big problems can be solved immediately. That is not the case. As politicians, we can do more to get people to understand that these challenges cannot be resolved overnight. That is why, later this year, the Prime Minister will bring forward a new plan for Britain—a 10-year plan laying out a path from where we are now to where we believe we all want Britain to be, combining immediate and direct action today with lasting national renewal and change that will be felt across the whole country.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, I think I have about one and a half minutes to respond. I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in this debate. It has been good-natured, and I am grateful for that.
I say to the noble Lord, Lord True, that I always enjoy his contributions, but we have had a good run in the House this week on the Government’s future priorities. We had the Statement yesterday with the extra 20 minutes for Back-Benchers, while my noble friend Lady Morgan’s debate earlier went to the core purpose of the Government, particularly in relation to young people and vocational training. I defend the right of Back-Benchers to lead debates on critical issues.
There is very little time left. I want to come back to the issue my noble friend left on, about seeking some consensus on some of the hardest issues we face. He mentioned social care. We have had two false starts—in 2010 and then later with the pronouncement from the now noble Baroness, Lady May, and the response to it. Let us make sure we do not do that again.
On climate, surely, we should work hard to try to recreate a consensus. Then there are issues such as the triple lock. We all know we have to face up to this. Again, I urge some form of debate between the different parties to see if we can reach a sensible outcome. Having said that, I am very grateful to all noble Lords who have taken part.
Nature Restoration Levy Regulations 2026
(1 day, 7 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
18:26 - Division on Lord Roborough’s amendment - Ayes: 41 / Noes: 29 - Amendment agreed.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage
That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 18 June be approved.
Relevant document: 8th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee (special attention drawn to the instrument)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (Baroness Taylor of Stevenage) (Lab)
My Lords, as Members will recall, the Government have been consistently clear in our commitment to get Britain building and to deliver the homes and infrastructure this country needs, but we have been equally clear that this must go hand in hand with improving outcomes for nature.
To honour that commitment, we legislated to introduce the nature restoration fund through the Planning and Infrastructure Act. The Government are incredibly grateful to Members of this House, not just for the late nights on the then Planning and Infrastructure Bill but for the very constructive engagement throughout the Bill’s passage which has ensured that the NRF provides a robust framework to support development and secure a lasting legacy of environmental improvement. The Nature Restoration Levy Regulations provide the statutory framework for the operation of the nature restoration levy which sits at the core of the NRF.
Before I get into the detail of the regulations, I want to respond to the amendment before us. I want to be clear that the nature restoration levy has not been designed to undermine development viability. On the contrary, the levy is intended to provide developers with a clearer, more certain and more streamlined route to meeting specific environmental obligations. The legislation includes a number of safeguards to ensure that levy rates are set appropriately and are based on the cost of delivering the conservation measures needed to materially outweigh the impacts of development on a protected site or species.
Natural England will be required to consult on proposed charging schedules as part of the environmental delivery plan process and levy rates will be carefully considered by the Secretary of State before an EDP is made. Through this approach, we are ensuring that development contributes fairly to environmental improvement while providing the certainty needed to support the delivery of essential homes and infrastructure.
As noble Lords will be aware, the purpose of the NRF is simple—to ensure that vital development is delivered while taking more effective action at strategic scale to deliver better outcomes for the environment. This approach will move us away from piecemeal interventions on a site-by-site basis and will secure the delivery of conservation measures that go further than maintaining the status quo to drive genuine environmental improvement.
Before we consider this instrument in detail, it is important to note that we are not today debating the fundamental principles that underpin the nature restoration fund. The enabling powers for these regulations are contained in the Planning and Infrastructure Act, which was subject to extensive scrutiny by both Houses and approved by them. Shifting to a strategic approach requires proper planning, which is why the creation of environmental delivery plans sits at the heart of this new approach. EDPs will be developed by Natural England, the Government’s adviser on the natural environment, and will demonstrate how the proposed package of conservation measures delivered by the EDP will materially outweigh one or more impacts of development on a protected site or species.
Each EDP will be subject to public consultation, providing an opportunity for stakeholders to scrutinise the evidence presented by Natural England. At the conclusion of that consultation process, the Secretary of State will consider whether the EDP meets the overall improvement test established through the Act before they formally make the EDP. Where an EDP is in place, developers will have the option to pay the nature restoration levy to discharge the relevant environmental obligations that the EDP covers.
That brings us to the subject of our discussions today, as the Government have been clear that the action delivered through the EDP will be funded through proportionate contributions from development. This ensures that developers continue to address the environmental impacts of development. The Nature Restoration Levy Regulations set out how the levy mechanism will work in practice. They provide the statutory framework for key elements of the levy’s operation, including how liability to pay the levy may be assumed, imposed or transferred. They also explain how the amount of the levy will be calculated, when the payment will be due and the enforcement mechanisms available to Natural England where obligations are not met.
The purpose of the nature restoration levy is to enable the delivery, management, maintenance and monitoring of the conservation measures identified in the relevant EDP. These regulations therefore provide clear safeguards to support the effective delivery of EDPs. They ensure that payments from developers are sufficient to meet the costs of the relevant conservation measures, are properly recovered in a timely manner and are aligned with the commercial realities of development. Levy rates will be set through individual EDP charging schedules which will form part of the EDP consulted on. These charging schedules will be based primarily on the cost of delivering the conservation measures that are needed to materially outweigh development impacts.
At times during passage of the Planning and Infrastructure Act, concerns were raised that funds collected through the nature restoration fund might be diverted to pay for other, unrelated priorities. However, I can reassure noble Lords that these regulations ensure that levy funds can be used only for the delivery of conservation measures set out in the relevant EDP and administrative expenses connected with that EDP. Clear reporting requirements around how levy receipts are spent will further enable the NRF to operate transparently and with appropriate scrutiny.
While the levy regulations are a key part of the new system, we recognise that users will need proper support to navigate the NRF. Initial guidance has now been published by MHCLG, Defra and Natural England to support the implementation of the first EDPs. This guidance sets out the key steps for NRF users and explains the core operational processes that will underpin the NRF system. The Government will continue to work with stakeholders to identify further areas where guidance might assist in the delivery of the nature restoration fund.
I trust that the House will agree that these regulations will support the effective implementation of the NRF and the rollout of EDPs. I beg to move.
Lord Roborough
At end insert “but that this House regrets that the draft Regulations will not require Natural England to take into consideration the financial viability of development and in particular other requirements for affordable housing, education, health and infrastructure contributions placed on the developer.”
Lord Roborough (Con)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for introducing these regulations. Although I am pleased to see her in her place, I wonder why they are being introduced by the Minister of State for MHCLG, when we were assured during debate that the responsible department and Secretary of State for administering EDPs and Part 3 of the Act would be Defra. I draw the House’s attention to my entry in the register of interests as a landowner with land that has planning consent for residential development, although I believe it is not captured by the regulations being debated today.
These regulations follow the Planning and Infrastructure Act 2025 and form part of this Government’s new approach to mitigating and compensating for environmental impacts caused by developments. Under this new regime, it will be for Natural England to determine the environmental impact of developments and the conservation measures required through new environmental delivery plans. Natural England will determine the levy as well as how the funds will then be spent.
Natural England’s recent performance has undermined confidence. The High Court found that the quango had acted irrationally and beyond its powers in the licensing of game bird releases. Its approach to reduce livestock grazing on Dartmoor caused controversy, as the unintended consequence would have been a sharp reduction in pony numbers, which apparently caught it by surprise. The quango then tried to shift the blame on to the Government. Its track record in planning is also poor, with the infamous bat tunnel on HS2 and the fish disco at Hinkley Point both being designed to meet its onerous demands, as well as the unnecessary Ebbsfleet SSSI jumping spider decision.
My main concern with these regulations is that they make no mention of considering the financial viability of developments. This puts Natural England’s demands over and above education, health, transport infrastructure, affordable housing and other things. We on these Benches care deeply about the importance of protecting and improving our natural world. However, putting the demands of nature over and above our health, our housing and our children’s education is dangerous as, for many of our countrymen, it will make nature a threat to their direct needs. How can we trust Natural England to assess environmental impact accurately when the greater that assessment, the greater the funds it receives? When creating EDPs, how can we trust Natural England to deliver value for money without any market competition? Is Natural England really the right body to be making balanced judgments about how much should be contributed under the NRL? This is simply extending the size and power of the state, always with good intentions but always with the same negative results.
This cost, without any accountability, risks making even more developments unviable. Many housing schemes are already stalled due to financial viability issues, as developments have been treated as a Christmas tree that can solve all of society’s demands. Developers may still opt for site-specific mitigation measures, but this means carrying out assessments separately from the EDP. Even then, Natural England can choose to make the NRL mandatory. Can the Minister clarify in what circumstances the levy payments could be made mandatory? Can this apply when a developer is willing and able to comply with the existing mitigation hierarchy? Will developers still be allowed to opt for existing compensation measures through the nutrient neutrality and biodiversity net gain markets within that hierarchy? This is an important element of nature restoration and financial underpinning for many land managers.
Not only does Natural England compete unsuccessfully with private sector BNG and NN developers but it can also now eliminate that competition, apparently at will. It looks as though the charging rates may be set very differently for each environmental delivery plan, and the Secretary of State will also have the power to change the payment rate of an EDP without consulting Natural England or developers. How will the Government ensure consistency for developers? What happens when a development happens to cross two or more EDP areas?
These regulations are disappointing. They put nature in opposition to core societal needs by ignoring the financial viability of the levy. They put the bureaucrats of Natural England in charge of nature restoration, undercutting private markets without any apparent limitations on what it can extract from developers. There is no acknowledgement of the mitigation hierarchy, nor recognition of the importance of nutrient neutrality and biodiversity net gain markets. In fact, in many regards they seem to have been drawn up as though the debates and commitments that we heard in Committee and on Report on the Planning and Infrastructure Act never happened.
I look forward to hearing the contributions of other noble Lords and the Minister’s response. Perhaps the Minister could at least commit to restricting these EDPs to nutrient neutrality, where they will do the least harm. Following the Government’s bizarre determination to impose habitats regulations on Ramsar sites, limiting the development of at least 100,000 houses, there is clear demand for nutrient neutrality units. The Minister was very generous with her time in discussing this when we brought the Bill through the House. If she is unable to give consideration to that, perhaps she could commit to withdrawing these regulations and thinking again. If neither of those things is possible, I would be minded to test the opinion of the House. I beg to move.
Baroness Coffey (Con)
My Lords, I am conscious that we spent a lot of time on the primary legislation trying to understand this, and I am not overly convinced that these regulations help. I have been carefully reading Commons Hansard, with Minister Matthew Pennycook explaining. Some things in there surprised me. It should be a matter of concern for the Government that, for example, the tech needed to undertake this whole process is still not ready, and it is unclear how this will move forward. I also share my noble friend Lord Roborough’s concerns. I had a response from the Defra Minister saying that the Secretary of State for Defra would be issuing the guidance on all these matters. It is accurate to say that Defra issued guidance, but it did so in conjunction with MHCLG. This comes back to some of the ongoing nervousness about who is really driving this. Is Defra just an add-on?
The reason I say that, in a different way, is that yesterday Minister Matthew Pennycook talked about wanting to make clear that the Government would protect developers who choose to use the NRL from unjustified costs. It is unclear to me who will determine which costs are unjustified. We know we are proceeding in a novel way in trying many years ahead to forecast how much the costs of these different EDPs are going to be, and there will be scrutiny of that.
I understand that the first EDP addresses nutrient neutrality in Norfolk. I would like to understand from the Minister why the consultation on the EDP is expected to last for only 28 days. That feels a very short time for the first ever of these models, and a considerable amount of effort will need to be put in to assess them. The other surprise is that that part of the country is one of the better areas for having got a green finance market going. This is undermining a lot of the issues that we face in trying to make these a success, so it would be useful to understand from the Minister why we are starting there. There are plenty of other places dealing with nutrient neutrality issues— I think of the Solent, parts of Somerset and the like—where there is not the same level of green finance market already under way.
I do not know whether it is the regulations or the primary legislation that allows the Secretary of State to change the levy rate at any time without notice, but I am trying to understand when that would be the case under these regulations and why that would not require any consultation. I was pleased to see Minister Matthew Pennycook say:
“In the case of the first EDP that we bring forward, it will be the DEFRA Secretary of State who makes the judgment on whether the EDP is to be made following consultation”.—[Official Report, Commons, Fifth Delegated Legislation Committee, 2/9/26; col. 9.]
Based on what was said in this Chamber, my hope and expectation was that the Secretary of State for Defra would make all the decisions on every EDP, not just on the first. As we embark on these novel ways of trying to improve nature—I respect that the Government are trying to do that—I would be grateful if the Minister could try to answer those questions.
There is another surprising element that is also surprising developers. I know that a developer can ask for several quotations—I think the word used is “quotes”—to understand what it might be getting into, but, in effect, once it has made its planning application and the commitment to pay, it is locked in. That is an interesting challenge. I know that Natural England, in trying to develop the EDP, will need some certainty on financing, but, bearing in mind what my noble friend has just referred to, confidence is not high.
The other issue, which I hope does not come through, is that in the primary legislation Natural England was able to delegate EDPs to anybody. Again, it is not clear how that bit is monitored and managed through these regulations, especially considering the 28-day consultation period.
There are many issues to raise, and I am sure that others will bring up various points. All I can say is that this does not feel as though it has made the whole process clearer; in fact, it has genuinely muddied the waters, particularly those around nutrient neutrality.
Lord Randall of Uxbridge (Con)
My Lords, these regulations have been drawn to the special attention of the House by the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee on the basis that they are politically or legally important or are a public policy likely to be of interest. I have some points to raise. I am not necessarily coming from the point where my noble friends are, or from the point of developers, but I recognise the importance of getting developments properly done.
The new impact assessment has not been conducted, despite the prior impact assessment not assessing impacts beyond those relating to nutrient pollution. This also means that we still have not seen sufficient evidence to justify the need for these new provisions. The draft regulations are not strong enough to safeguard against abuse of the system. The details set out in the draft regulations will not protect local protected species and sites from the Planning and Infrastructure Act 2025.
Natural England will be expected to pick up the bill for developer obligations in several scenarios, despite being under massive, sustained budget pressures itself. These include not being able to apply surcharges for failure to pay sums under £1,000, not being able to enforce local land charges with less than £2,000 outstanding, and having to absorb some degree of cost where material changes occur that will cost more money. Under draft Regulation 23(2), Natural England could reduce levy fees if it is expecting other sources of funding, which I understand means that public money could be used to offset the harm done by private development. It is unclear to me whether Natural England can include the cost of designing the conservation measures in the levy amounts. Failure to do so will heavily incentivise generic copy-and-paste measures over more ecologically appropriate measures. The Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee has highlighted several issues, including the lack of clarity over what the fund levy would look like in practice.
Environmental organisations strongly oppose the environment delivery plan model. Nonetheless, if it is going to go ahead—and I believe it will do—some measures must be taken to limit the damage done by this model. Natural England should be driven by environmental outcomes, not financial viability for developers. Public funding should not be used to reduce the rates in a charging schedule for private developers, as would be possible under Regulation 23(2) of the draft text. Natural England should be explicitly permitted to include the cost of designing conservation measures within the charging schedules. Appeals should be dealt with by independent, non-political actors and not a Secretary of State.
A full assessment must be conducted on the impacts of the environment delivery plan system before the first plans are enacted. These impacts should be considered during the design of the plans to avoid avoidable harms to protected species, protected sites and other environmental features, and the stakeholders involved.
I urge the Government to make meaningful changes to tackle the issues that are raised here as I suspect that, despite the endeavours of many, these regulations will go ahead. But as my noble friend has said, there is a good case for taking these away and thinking again.
Lord Fuller (Con)
My Lords, environmentalists are up in arms on the nature restoration fund and EDPs because they break the link between a development and its nature mitigations. Developers are saying that the cost, risks and delay are making development unviable, while everybody argues that nothing is getting built in those areas of the country with the greatest housing potential.
Taken together with all the environmental fees, charges and other levies, it has put the price of a new home up by about £30,000 to £40,000 in the last five years. The hard truth is that well-meaning but counterproductive nature levies and other levies are damaging our economy, with brickies, ground workers, sparkies and chippies all sitting idle. Of course, the simple truth is that not building new homes—especially social homes, which are the first to get the chop when viability is in question—is not going to clean up the rivers. The organisation that is meant to grip this has singularly failed in the five years since it misdirected Ministers that families trying to get their feet on the housing ladder should bear the brunt of upgrading the sewage treatment works, rather than the water companies whose job it really is.
The situation we find ourselves in today is a direct result of Natural England misdirecting itself as to the science and arithmetic of nutrient mobility. It confused absorption with adsorption and has misrepresented scientific papers that it purports support its position when the reverse is true. By way of a declaration of interest, I am involved in the fertiliser industry, so understanding nutrient mobility in soils is one of my specialist subjects.
About four years ago, when it became obvious that Natural England had stymied housebuilding in my area and was incapable of addressing river pollution, I established the Norfolk Environmental Credits company, which is owned by all the councils of Norfolk, to do the job that Natural England has the staffing, powers, software and responsibility to do, but does not. I was the person who set up that green financial market referred to by my noble friend Lady Coffey. Five years on, if it were not for people like me rolling up my sleeves to get this problem addressed—and franchising it to other council areas in other catchments—no new homes would have been built in the entirety of this Parliament. I would like to take credit for this, but I am anxious that all this hard work will have been for nothing if Natural England takes our homework, runs away with it and leaves us high and dry.
The problem is that Natural England has been allowed to get away with being simultaneously the regulator, adviser, enforcer, operator, pricer, procurer and competitor in a market in the grossest case of multiple conflicts of interest that, in any other walk of life, would be closed down for being contrary to the public interest. Its advice has caused us to sleepwalk into an Alice in Wonderland situation where a fertiliser colleague could sell a farmer a kilo of phosphate for 85p, but a developer must spend £50,000 to remove it from the treatment works at the other end.
If that was not crazy enough, the Government have made the river problem even worse by subsidising the production of over 20 million tonnes of biogas digestate—applied to the land at the wrong time of year—which does more than anything else to turn the rivers green. Yet these polluters do not pay a penny into the fund. It is wrong.
All these levies have brought developers to their knees. All they wanted to know was how much, when, where and how these charges would be applied, as well as the scope, extent, cost and regulation that the EDPs require in an evidence-based and transparent manner, with a degree of consistency from one place to another. But it was too much to hope for. When the regulations were laid in June, the first were all about how Natural England could charge and enforce its fees. We are still none the wiser on the important things. The credibility of the nature restoration fund ultimately rests on a simple question: will levy income be sufficient to fund conservation measures for as long as they are required to deliver the promised environmental outcomes?
When we went through the then Planning and Infrastructure Bill, we warned of the consequences of allowing Natural England to lead on this when it could not even get their stories straight on the jumping spiders or the ponies or the advice on bird flu, which was used as a bogus pretext to license shooting in the land use framework. It has ceased to be trusted. Through its indolence, we still have no idea whether the EDPs would issue some sort of permit or a licence for the resident to flush his lavatory in his new home. That distinction is important. A permit is an asset that is tradable on the secondary market—repeating the milk quota disaster of the 1980s—whereas a licence, if no longer needed, perhaps because a sewage treatment works has been upgraded, can be surrendered so that the mitigation can be applied again for the benefit of the taxpayer for the remainder of the 80-year term. Is it a licence or a permit? We do not know. It is an important matter.
Now we get to the pricing. The market for phosphate credits has settled at around £5,000 per dwelling. That fee covers not just the immediate costs of introducing a mitigation but those tail liabilities of management for at least 80 years together with inspection and regulatory costs along the way. As I explained during the passage of the Planning and Infrastructure Bill, this is an actuarial evaluation problem. The problem is that Natural England exhibits little understanding of this simple economic reality. All indications are that it will just pick a number out of the air that is wholly unrelated and untethered to those liabilities, and, in so doing, chop off at the knees people—like me, through our councils—who rolled up their sleeves to fix the problem when Natural England would not.
If it does that, it will at a stroke further damage our economic reputation, because there is one area in which the UK has developed some quite interesting and valuable intellectual property: the running of nature markets. All the indications are that Natural England’s cack-handed ignorance would completely destroy the accumulated value of these nature markets. Our company has already had to take an impairment.
When are the Government going to get a grip and rein in this organisation that has so wilfully misunderstood the science, made our economy smaller and homes more expensive, left social homes unbuilt and workers and professionals sitting at home, delayed mitigations and imperilled our global leadership in the nature market—all when Natural England’s first priority, through its regulations, was simply to featherbed their own bureaucracy?
Baroness Parminter (LD)
My Lords, this discussion is the first chance that this House has had to really try to understand exactly how the Government intend to implement the new EDP process, which we debated at such considerable length during the Planning and Infrastructure Bill. As certain noble Lords have already said, these regulations give us very little clarity about the process. It was these Benches which secured at Third Reading of the Planning and Infrastructure Bill that there would be greater clarity from Natural England as to how it would prepare EDPs and prioritise actions to minimise the potential environmental damage by the developments resulting from these EDPs.
The negative statutory instrument laid in June talked about how Natural England had to take account of the mitigation hierarchy. However, there was the rider that it could do that only when it thought it was appropriate to do so, so it was almost a “get out of jail free” card. The issues which the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, and the noble Baroness, Lady Willis, focused on, on getting clarity upfront about the scientific evidence to provide the baseline environmental assessments, were not mentioned at all in those regulations and are not covered in the regulations before us today. Therefore, it seems that we will have to wait for the consultations on each individual EDP, as they come forward, to try to assess those critical environmental issues.
The noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, made a very important point: it has become clear that we are going to get only 28 days for each of those consultations—for that very complex job of understanding those environmental factors. That is something that we regret. We ask the Government to think again about limiting the public consultation on those EDPs to 28 days. Given that there has been so little detail in the regulations, it is necessary that we get greater clarity during the public consultation.
I have three substantive points of concern on the regulations before us. Like the noble Lord, Lord Roborough, but for different reasons in the main, I regret these regulations. The first point is that the levy can be paid in instalments by developers, whereas in the present system for developers that are bringing forward a development that will cause environmental damage, the payment and the environmental mitigation have to be upfront. In these regulations, the only tied-down part of the funding that the developer will have to produce is the first instalment. This was an issue that the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee picked up and, as we have heard, it got a response that that was clearly around the issue of cash flow and the viability of buildouts and development. In a sense, that is understandable. However, we have seen in other areas, in which developers have argued about viability at later dates, that protracted arguments about funding constraints can lead to the environmental improvements that we want not coming forward. It is a concern for us that only the first instalment is fixed.
Secondly, as the noble Lord, Lord Randall, raised, there can be a reduced fee for developers if other sources of funding can be found. From my point of view, it seems that if charities or the public purse are funding environmental improvements in an EDP area, that means that somehow developers can get out of paying the amount that they should be paying. That does not seem right, and I would like the Minister to clarify exactly what funding they think this is referring to. Could it be funding coming from charities or the public purse, either through Natural England or through other schemes that the public purse is funding? In the end, it does not seem right that there can be reduced levies for developers if other actors are funding environmental developments in that area.
The third issue, which the noble Lord, Lord Roborough, raised and which I feel particularly strongly about, is that the Explanatory Memorandum to these regulations says that for some EDPs the levy will be mandatory. We have 16 EDPs that the Government have said they are producing, and it would be good to know how many of those they think the levy will be mandatory for, because it effectively kills dead the private market green schemes that are out there. I think none of us would wish to see that. Indeed, the Government have said they want to see a plurality of solutions to address the development and environmental challenges that we face.
During the Recess, I went down to the Solent and saw the very impressive nutrient management market down there which has been developed by a combination of the Wildlife Trusts and local authorities. The Wildlife Trusts bought up an intensively managed piece of land, stopped using fertiliser and sold credits to developers. That scheme has resulted in 2,500 homes being built in the Solent in an area where there are big nutrient problems. As soon as the EDP scheme was announced, that was put on hold and now has effectively stopped, and this is equally so—this will be of concern to the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, and the noble Lord, Lord Fuller—for a scheme in Norfolk. Therefore, we are really concerned about the mandatory nature of this scheme. We need to encourage a plurality of systems, and these regulations do not do that.
Lord Jamieson (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Taylor of Stevenage, for her introduction to these regulations and my noble friend Lord Roborough for his amendment and thoughtful words. I also thank other noble Lords who participated in this debate for their thoughtful words. I think there is universal agreement that these regulations do not work.
We all want to see our natural environment preserved, but people also need somewhere to live. There are 1.34 million people on council waiting lists. Homes in many parts of England are simply unaffordable, with the average home costing 10 times average London wages. For private renters, rent is taking an increasing proportion of household income, about 40% in England and nearly two-thirds for some of the lower-income households. The situation is worsening, with Pepper Money estimating that there are 220,000 fewer rental properties as landlords exit the market following the Government’s Renters’ Rights Act.
We have a housing crisis, but the Government continue to make the situation worse. Despite their commitment to build 1.5 million new homes, only 200,000 were delivered last year, down 4% on the previous year. By contrast, the Conservatives delivered 1 million homes, as promised, over the last Parliament, and that included the impact of Covid. The Government continue to increase the burdens on housebuilding, which ultimately increases the cost to home buyers and renters. It is not just any one regulation or levy but the continual layering of additional burdens: the building levy, landfill tax, high-rise building safety, Section 106 and the future homes standard, among others. The Home Builders Federation estimates that the cost of building a low-rise home has increased by 76,000 since 2020.
It is easy to say that this should be reflected in the price of land, but often the value is simply not there, particularly for brownfield land. With the poor economic outlook and increasing interest rates, people cannot afford higher house prices or rents. If the cost of building is greater than the sales price, homes will not be built, and I fear that in many areas of the country we are approaching that point.
We do not dispute that harm to nature must be managed, mitigated and compensated for. It is a crucial consideration for any planning application, but people also need somewhere to live. During debates on the Planning and Infrastructure Bill, mitigation hierarchy, viability and mandation were discussed and assurances sought by this House. We need developments to provide infrastructure, whether it is schools, roads or health facilities, as well as affordable homes, but these regulations risk cuts to these in order to make sites viable.
My noble friends Lord Fuller, Lord Roborough and Lady Coffey all raised the effectiveness and efficiency of Natural England. Do we really want it to be judge, jury and executioner, setting the policy, determining whether it has been met and then setting up its own schemes and levies with no accountability? Do we want it to be able to create its own monopoly and eliminate competition, as in the Solent, mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter?
The Minister has said that Natural England will be accountable to the Secretary of State, but is it realistic that the Secretary of State will be able to evaluate fully the financial effectiveness of every EDP and all the potential competing schemes that are being eliminated for it, not to mention the needs of every single site that might be affected by it? I am not sure that this is realistic. The Minister has said that this will not be an obligation on developers. However, the regulations are littered with words such as “obligation”, “imposed”, “mandatory” and “enforcement”.
We must also reduce our reliance on major housing developers, yet it is the smaller developers which will be most exposed to the individual costs and levies of these regulations. What assurances can the Minister give that viability will be a core part of these regulations; that schools, infrastructure and affordable homes will not lose out; that Natural England will not be able to impose a mandate; and that consideration will be given to SME builders, with recognition of the need to prioritise brownfield? As my noble friend Lord Randall of Uxbridge pointed out, when will we see the impact assessment of these regulations?
We need a balance between the need to preserve our environment and the need for housing. Regulators need to be accountable.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords for their considered contributions. It has been a useful debate, but some of it has reflected some of the issues that we rehearsed in the Planning and Infrastructure Bill and has not focused as much on the regulations. I will try to touch on as many points as I can, but I am sure noble Lords will appreciate that, in a short debate such as this, if I do not get to them, I may have to respond in writing.
The noble Lord, Lord Roborough, raised the key issue of the balance between MHCLG and Defra, both specifically around EDPs but also more widely about the nature restoration fund. We are going to have to get used to working across more than one department on some of these issues. Defra clearly has a key role, but MHCLG is the ministry responsible for planning, so we have to make sure that we get that balance right. As far as I know, Defra will continue to be responsible for EDPs. We had long discussions on the Bill about the Secretary of State for Defra signing off EDPs. If that is not the case, I will come back to the noble Lord, but my memory is that it is.
A number of noble Lords raised issues that were discussed during the passage of the Bill around the capacity and capability of Natural England. The noble Lords, Lord Roborough and Lord Jamieson, and the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, mentioned this. Natural England is the appropriate delivery body for the NRF. It has internal expertise and is able to operate effectively across the whole of England.
By providing an alternative to the existing approach of the fragmented, site-by-site mitigation that we saw, through the introduction of a strategic, plan-led system, the NRF enables Natural England to deploy more expertise more efficiently across regional geographies. It will be supported to take strategic action and to deliver the conservation measures set out within individual EDPs using income from the nature restoration levy.
The regulations also enable targeted use of levy funding to cover the administrative costs, which there were a number of questions about. It can be used for the administrative costs associated with the delivery of individual EDPs, not spread across the country. This will enable Natural England to build and maintain the capacity and capability to design, implement and monitor EDPs effectively.
The noble Lord, Lord Roborough, focused a lot of his comments on viability, as did the noble Lord, Lord Fuller, and I understand the reasons for that. I point out initially that the NRF is not the only consideration in planning in relation to infrastructure. The whole planning system—we have just republished the NPPF—makes it very clear that all issues around infrastructure must be taken into account.
On the NRF, Natural England will have the flexibility to set rates that reflect local circumstances and capture specific environmental and delivery considerations across the EDP. Where levy rates need to be higher, this will reflect the genuine cost of securing required conservation measures to address the impact of development. The vast majority of EDPs will be voluntary—I will come on to the mandatory issue in a moment—so developers will be able to choose between using the EDP or meeting environmental obligations through existing means.
Rates will be set out in the individual EDP charging schedules, alongside information regarding how they have been set. It will therefore be a requirement on Natural England to set out how it has set its rates. Levy rates will vary between EDPs and can be calculated for specific development by reference to factors including the type of development, the location and environmental impact.
On the mandatory EDPs, which the noble Lord, Lord Roborough, and the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, both mentioned, we would expect EDPs to be made mandatory only in very limited circumstances—for example, where Natural England has worked directly with a developer on a specific EDP to cover its project alone. All EDPs will be subject to a full public consultation before they can be made by the Secretary of State. Given that the vast majority of them will be voluntary, if an EDP is not a viable, competitive or attractive option, developers can continue to use existing routes to meet their obligations, limiting the ability of Natural England to deliver the wider environmental benefits that the NRF is designed to achieve. So, in all but exceptional circumstances, EDPs will be voluntary.
The noble Lord, Lord Roborough, raised the issue of the mitigation hierarchy and whether this is being weakened by this process, leaving Natural England with too much discretion. Throughout the passage of the Bill, we were clear that the mitigation hierarchy lives on in this model, but that Natural England is not required to apply it in the inflexible way that has often constrained strategic nature recovery. To make sure the Government were as transparent as possible on this point, a specific duty was introduced in the House requiring regulations to be made setting out the appropriate prioritisation, by Natural England, of the different ways of addressing any negative effect of development.
The Environmental Delivery Plan (Appropriate Prioritisation) Regulations, laid alongside the regulations before us, deliver on that commitment. They make clear that Natural England must consider the mitigation hierarchy when developing an EDP, while they preserve the discretion of Natural England to determine the appropriate conservation measures in the circumstances. The noble Lord, Lord Krebs, and the noble Baroness, Lady Willis, have been working very effectively with Defra on these issues, and I am very grateful to them for their input.
Issues were raised around gold-plating of conservation measures, notably by the noble Lords, Lord Roborough and Lord Fuller. While Natural England must prepare EDPs based on the best available scientific evidence and explain why the proposed conservation measures are appropriate, it is also required to set levy rates that will enable the recovery of the costs of delivering the EDP, rather than generate surplus funds. All EDPs, as I said, are subject to public consultation and approval by the Secretary of State.
Finally, Natural England will be incentivised to ensure that the levy remains competitive and attractive to developers, as EDPs will be voluntary in almost all circumstances. So, if it gold plates them, developers will not accept them. It is as simple as that.
The noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, and the noble Lord, Lord Roborough, raised issues around consultation. There are government consultation guidelines which I am assuming have been recognised in the consultation on this but, if the noble Baroness will allow me, I will go back and check that this type of consultation follows those guidelines and respond in writing on that point.
On the issue of setting the levy, raised by the noble Lords, Lord Randall and Lord Fuller, and the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, the levy regulations establish clear parameters that Natural England must follow when setting the levy rates. They also recognise that the costs underpinning EDPs will vary according to the environmental impacts being addressed and the conservation measures required. This framework provides Natural England with the flexibility to set levy rates that reflect local needs and delivery requirements. The levy is designed to enable full cost recovery, so there should not be a cost to Natural England for that, and rates are required to reflect the costs of delivering the necessary conservation measures as well as administration, monitoring and maintenance activities.
The governing test remains the overall improvement test, whereby an EDP will materially outweigh the negative effects of development. Although I understand some of the concerns, particularly around viability, we cannot carry on with a situation where developers were doing development that was polluting our rivers in a way that has caused inordinate damage to them. We had to take some action on this. Levy rates will also take account of relevant administrative costs necessary to the delivery of the EDP under which the levy is charged.
There were questions on funding from other sources—the noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, raised this and the noble Lord, Lord Randall, had some concerns about this issue as well—and about whether the ability to reduce levy payments where there is funding from other sources will result in developers not paying their fair share. That is not the case. The provision is intended to allow a targeted flexibility in very limited circumstances, enabling the Government or other sources to contribute to the costs of delivering an EDP where appropriate to support viability for certain types of priority development. That is what that provision in the regulations is for.
The noble Baroness, Lady Parminter, asked about the timing of levy payments, which is a very important point. I know she is concerned about the payments by instalment. The regulations enable payments to be made in instalments to better align with the realities of build-out phases, but this will be possible only where expressly provided for by Natural England through instalment plans. Instalment plan options may vary between EDPs. Where an instalment plan is used, payments will typically be spread across the development period rather than being required in full up front. However, even where an instalment plan applies, the first instalment must be paid before development can commence. I will not go into the detail because I do not have time, but there are clear provisions to help Natural England with enforcement and the follow-up if payments are not made. We have looked very closely at that.
In conclusion, the instrument sets out a framework for the nature restoration levy and provides Natural England with the tools it needs to implement the NRF. In response to the noble Lord, Lord Jamieson, whose points were mainly about the housing crisis—a housing crisis that his Government caused and we are now trying to fix—I make no apologies for wanting to build these homes, for the £39 billion we are investing in housing, for wanting people’s homes to be safe and secure and for wanting their environments to be sustainable.
I trust that the House agrees that these regulations will support the delivery of the nature restoration fund and our shared ambition more widely to grow both nature and the economy. I hope that these regulations will be welcomed.
Lord Jamieson (Con)
Before the Minister sits down, can I just clarify a couple of comments that she made? She was very clear that there would be an option as to whether one went with the Natural England EDP. Can we be absolutely clear that that will always be the case, particularly when Natural England is marking its own homework and deciding whether the mitigation put in place by a developer, whatever that is, is sufficient or not? Secondly, she said that it would be mandatory only in very specific situations and gave the example of an EDP that was specifically brought forward for a particular large development. Can she be clear that that is the only instance in which it would be mandatory? Thirdly, I think she said that developers cause pollution. I believe additional housing results in additional burdens on nutrient neutrality; it is not necessarily that the developer itself is polluting. The Minister might want to clarify that one.
Baroness Taylor of Stevenage (Lab)
I will clarify that, in all but exceptional circumstances, EDPs are voluntary for developers. The Planning and Infrastructure Act establishes that Natural England can recommend that use of an EDP be mandatory only where it deems it to be necessary. This is a high legal bar, and it would ultimately be for the Secretary of State to consider whether an EDP is made. Given that the vast majority of EDPs will be voluntary, if an EDP is not a viable, competitive or attractive option, developers will continue to use existing routes to meet their obligations, limiting the ability of Natural England to deliver the wider environmental benefits that the NRF is designed to achieve.
We want to make this process work better for nature while continuing to allow the growth we all want to see take place, particularly housing growth. There is no doubt in my mind that we could not carry on as we were. We have had to make some changes to make sure that we protect our natural environment and get the growth we want to see.
Lord Roborough (Con)
My Lords, I am very grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken in this short debate. I will clarify one point made by my noble friend Lord Randall. I hope no one thinks I am speaking on behalf of developers; I am speaking on behalf of nature. My concern is that if we give nature too much power in this debate, it will be seen as a blocker of development, and that is not necessary. That is why I am concerned about this viability test.
I am very grateful to the Minister, who made a lot of helpful comments at the Dispatch Box. People will read Hansard avidly, I am sure, for guidance from what she has said and, in particular, for the clarification about the role of the mitigation hierarchy. However, I remain concerned about the viability impact of these regulations on housebuilding and other development. I also remain very concerned about the impact on private nature markets, where we currently lead the world, and therefore I would like to test the opinion of the House.