House of Commons
Oral Answers to Questions
(1 day, 9 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Aphra Brandreth (Chester South and Eddisbury) (Con)
Joe Robertson (Isle of Wight East) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Business, Innovation, Science and Trade (Jonathan Reynolds)
Everything my Department does—from industrial strategy, small business support, trade and exports to innovation and science—has the creation of good jobs at the heart of it. In the UK, there are challenges around jobs for young people, no doubt, but youth unemployment has shown to be outperforming that of comparable economies such as France and Italy, and the Government have a further agenda in this area.
Aphra Brandreth
The wonderful family-run Ice Cream Farm in Tattenhall is one of our region’s largest youth employers, giving many young people their very first job, but the current rules limit children below school-leaving age to just two hours’ work on Sundays, even during school holidays. For businesses in rural areas, where parents often have to drive considerable distances to get their kids to work, this simply is not practical. Will the Secretary of State review the restriction while maintaining important safeguards, so that businesses such as the Ice Cream Farm can offer more young people vital first work experience?
Jonathan Reynolds
I appreciate the hon. Lady’s question. This subject has come up with me before, both on a constituency basis and as the Secretary of State. There is the potential to look at the regulations in this area. I do not think it is about exploitation; it is about providing reasonable opportunities that young people desire. I promise that I will go away and look at this issue, and write to the hon. Lady with further information.
Joe Robertson
Jobs and opportunities for young people have dried up over the last two years because the Government have made it more expensive to employ them. On the Isle of Wight, this has compounded our pre-existing structural problems. Will the Government now do the right thing and halve national insurance contributions for employing under-25s, to help grow more opportunities and jobs for young people?
Jonathan Reynolds
No one in this Government is complacent about the challenges of youth unemployment, but there has been no spike in the figures since 2024. The rise has been consistent since 2022, in an entirely linear fashion. The hon. Gentleman will know that employers do not pay national insurance for under-21s, or for apprentices under the age of 25—it is important to be clear about how the system works. On the challenges in his constituency, there is a further agenda coming in this area through the Milburn review. It has an exciting set of proposals that I believe employers in the hon. Gentleman’s area will get behind, if we make them a substantial offer.
Amanda Hack (North West Leicestershire) (Lab)
It was my pleasure to host the British Retail Consortium in Parliament for its announcement of Opening Shift, a partnership between Government and 40 retailers, providing over 11,000 work placements to help support young people who are not in education, training or employment into work. Could the Secretary of State update me on what progress has been made on getting other retailers involved, but also on how we could extend Opening Shift to ensure that semi-rural constituencies like mine can benefit?
Jonathan Reynolds
I commend my hon. Friend for the work she is doing. One of my first jobs as a young person was in Foster Menswear in Sunderland city centre—my performance was mixed, to be honest, but it was an important set of skills to learn. The retail sector is known for the opportunities it provides for young people. My hon. Friend will know that there is already a set of proposals from the Government on not just national insurance, but incentives to take young people into employment if they have been out of work for a period of time, or into apprenticeships if they are in that age cohort. There is more we can do in this area, but there is an offer there and she is doing the right thing by highlighting that to businesses in her constituency.
Brian Leishman (Alloa and Grangemouth) (Lab)
Syngenta in Grangemouth recently announced 377 redundancies. Along with the recent closures of Versalis, Fujifilm and, of course, the Grangemouth oil refinery, this means a real reduction in positive destinations for local young people. What can the UK Government do to accelerate the readiness of sites in Grangemouth in order to unlock the £200 million from the National Wealth Fund, so that we can build Grangemouth and Scotland’s industrial future?
Jonathan Reynolds
Obviously, the immediate activity is supporting the affected employees throughout the consultation period. My hon. Friend will know that the use of the powers of Government—the powers of the state —to make sites available quickly for inward investment to the UK has always been a priority of mine. He is right to say that the National Wealth Fund has already made a nominal allocation to Grangemouth. Other programmes in the industrial strategy, such as the strategic sites accelerator, are all about trying to improve the pace at which we can take advantage of the investment opportunities the UK is presented with. I promise him that I will remain in close consultation with him, and of course with the Secretary of State for Energy and Net Zero.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I call the acting shadow Secretary of State.
Julia Lopez (Hornchurch and Upminster) (Con)
It is British Beauty Week—I can see you have been celebrating, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I am sure the Secretary of State has been, too—but it is tough out there for our salons. The industry lost one in five employees last year, which is the largest loss of any job type in the UK. Many will have been young people starting their careers in the industry, and few salons can afford to employ and train them because they are getting hammered by the jobs tax, soaring business rates and higher utility bills. What hope is the Prime Minister offering them?
Jonathan Reynolds
I notice the hon. Lady did not go first on British Beauty Week to me, but to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, and that is fair. British Beauty Week is an important moment, not least to celebrate the contribution of the sector and the, I believe, over 5,000 new apprentices starting in the sector in every corner of the UK this year.
The hon. Lady in effect asks what the big economic story in the UK is, and I would say that the hope comes from the fact that, despite the challenges that exist in the global economy around the world, the economy under this Government is clearly performing more strongly than it did for 14 years under the Tories. My proof points for that are that wages are rising faster than prices and, crucially, that GDP is rising not just overall, but per head, as opposed to the modest increases under the Conservatives, which were really from population increases and large-scale immigration. An economy performing more strongly is in the interests of every business. On the opportunities for young people, there are the tax and fiscal incentives I have mentioned, with the further agenda coming through the Milburn review.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)
Youth unemployment stands at 15%, and in London that figure is 25%, while 700,000 graduates are out of work. Retail and hospitality are cornerstones of the everyday economy, providing vital employment, driving local growth and creating thriving town centres. However, average employment costs have increased by 11% since Labour took office, which disproportionately affects sectors that traditionally offer entry level jobs. Policy decisions taken by this Government are making it impossibly hard for businesses to provide young people with their first foot on the career ladder. Will the Secretary of State acknowledge the damage being done to young people, and will Ministers ensure that, as they implement secondary legislation under the Employment Rights Act 2025, they balance the rights of employees fairly with the needs of businesses to provide jobs for young people?
Jonathan Reynolds
The Lib Dem spokesperson raises a few issues, but I would say first that doing a job like this, or any job in government, means acknowledging the trade-offs. The simple truth is that the things we will be talking about during this session and that everyone in the House wants to see funded were not funded in the plans that we inherited. Yes, it is always difficult to raise the tax burden on anyone in the UK, but priorities promised to the British people—for this successor Department, the money for the Port Talbot steelworks transformation and the compensation for the post office sub-postmasters—were not funded, so the Chancellor at the time did have to raise or find the money to fulfil the existing pledges that had been made.
However, I promise the hon. Member that the aggregate impact or the balance for business—whether it is on employment rights or on taxation—is something this Department always fights very hard for in Government, because we are aware that the only way to fulfil the true ambitions of the British people is with an economy that is performing strongly, employing more people, and giving them hope and opportunity for the future. I do believe that this new Department, with the extra things that have come into it, has a genuinely exciting opportunity to bring a more coherent story to these interventions from Government, and that is the best way to a stronger economy.
Hannah Spencer (Gorton and Denton) (Green)
The Secretary of State for Business, Innovation, Science and Trade (Jonathan Reynolds)
I welcome this question from my constituency neighbour, and I am grateful to her for raising it. The Prime Minister and I have been clear that Jodrell Bank has a secure future. Just to be clear with the House about what is happening, the primary radio astronomy project will move from the e-MERLIN radio telescope to the Square Kilometre Array observatory in March 2028. That was a science-based decision, but we are exploring the long-term options for the sustainability of Jodrell Bank.
Hannah Spencer
Funding for the e-MERLIN radio telescope network is due to end in 2028, putting Jodrell Bank’s future at risk. People across Gorton and Denton have made clear to me the vital role the observatory plays in opening science up to people of all ages. Many of us went there on school trips as kids. The Prime Minister assured us that his Government will find a funding solution, so will the Secretary of State explain how the Government intend to honour that heartfelt commitment and secure Jodrell Bank’s long-term future as an active sovereign scientific facility?
Jonathan Reynolds
I am grateful to the hon. Lady for raising this issue. I recognise the strength of feeling that she talked about in her question. She will know that, on a clear day, you can see Jodrell Bank from Matley Lane in Tameside and it is a wonderful sight. It is important, given that we have a very significant research and development budget in the UK, that scientific decisions are made on the basis of the science, but that still does not mean there is no future for Jodrell Bank as an asset. That is consistent with making sure that we are making science-based decisions on the prioritisation of that funding. I met the University of Manchester just a few days ago on this issue, and the local MPs for the area have been incredibly supportive in finding a solution. I hope to have more to say on that soon.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Order. Back-Bench MPs can only come in if the question is about Jodrell Bank observatory. [Interruption.] I call the shadow Minister.
Peter Fortune (Bromley and Biggin Hill) (Con)
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker—the renationalisation of the railways is not working. [Laughter.]
The Drayson partitions exist to ensure that costs which the UK must meet and cannot change, such as international subscriptions that give us access to scientific facilities, are treated separately to costs that we have control over, such as grants funding. With the Science and Technology Facilities Council given a flat cash settlement, but with international subscriptions rising with inflation, the STFC now has less money to spend on actual research, leading to world-leading scientific research being dropped and to the closure of facilities such as Jodrell Bank. Can I ask the Secretary of State who made the decision to disregard the Drayson partitions?
Jonathan Reynolds
It is good to see the shadow Minister and I thank him for his question.
Let me be clear with the House. If we take the UKRI budget in aggregate for the spending review period, it is nearly £39 billion. If we take the overall R&D budget for the UK in the spending review period, it is £86 billion —record levels of funding making a difference. It is absolutely crucial within that that we make sure the decisions on the prioritisation of funding are science-based. The issue the hon. Gentleman identifies, the tension between research projects and subscription projects and their funding, is one I am familiar with, and he is making a serious point that has to be explored. As for who made the decision, the process runs through, I think, 30 different meetings of the research council. It has a process where submissions are taken from a very wide range of areas. There will always be more people wanting more funding than is available, no matter how big I make the spending pot, but as a House we should be clear that we want these decisions to be made primarily on a scientific basis.
Adam Thompson (Erewash) (Lab)
The Minister for Science, Innovation and Investment (Chris McDonald)
As this is my first run-out in my new brief, I thought it might be nice to just take a moment to recognise the work of Lord Vallance as Science Minister and Lord Stockwood as Investment Minister, and thank them very much for their work.
As we have just heard from the Secretary of State, the Government are making record investments in science and technology to keep the UK at the forefront of global research and innovation. We are committing £86 billion to R&D between 2026-27 and 2029-30, including £38.6 billion for UK research and innovation. These investments are translating into jobs, innovation and economic opportunity across the UK, including in the east midlands.
Adam Thompson
I welcome the new Minister to his new place. Despite the Government’s significant funding increases to science generally, the Science and Technology Facilities Council is facing significant cost pressures. I met recently with some STFC-funded former colleagues who fear an exodus of professional talent from the UK because of those pressures. Given the importance of STFC-funded facilities in the UK’s scientific capability, will the Minister set out what he is doing to ensure that the council’s financial position is put on a sustainable footing, without undermining the long-term pipeline of researchers and the UK’s ability to participate in major international science programmes?
Chris McDonald
It is important to recognise that the changes have an impact on the staff that work for the STFC. I have been in the unfortunate position of working in a company undertaking such a restructure—and of having to do such restructures in the past—and I appreciate how difficult that is for staff. I have spoken to the executive chair of STFC, and at the core of the programme —exactly as my hon. Friend has described—is a desire to get STFC into a position where it has appropriate financial management, while also increasing productivity and modernising in response to new technology. The Government are supporting that with an increase in STFC’s funding to £842 million by 2029-30, from the £835 million of 2025-26.
Victoria Collins (Harpenden and Berkhamsted) (LD)
Harpenden is home to Rothamsted Research and our universities lead the world, yet too much of that brilliance never leaves the lab. Will the Minister look at Lib Dem proposals to bring in a standard national framework for spin-out IP, and quintuple proof-of-concept funding, so Britain’s discoveries scale here and not abroad?
Chris McDonald
I agree with the hon. Member’s point about the need for Britain’s discoveries to be scaled at home rather than abroad. I am taking an end-to-end approach on that, starting with scientific discovery and hopefully ending with large companies listed on the London stock exchange, supporting businesses throughout that process. UKRI and Innovate UK are doing great work in that area, supported by the increased role of the British Business Bank.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I call the Chair of the Science, Innovation and Technology Committee.
Dame Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central and West) (Lab)
I welcome the Minister to his new role as well as this Government’s emphasis on driving growth through innovation in every region of our country, as recommended by my Committee’s recent report, “Flying Blind”. It was called that because it identified a lack of data and information about the factors that drive growth and how to measure success in our regions and across clusters. The report called for a dashboard. Will the Minister tell me what progress has been made on that dashboard, and has he looked at the Cambridge x Manchester Partnership baseline report, which identified a number of indicators, including company stock, funded count, and disclosed funding by employee band?
Chris McDonald
My hon. Friend and I share a great confidence in data and a desire to make decisions based on it. With the regional disparities that she is describing, I have looked at the data and there is a clear distinction between the proportion of UKRI funding and UKRI spin-outs, for instance, and then the ability of those companies to attract investment. In fact, the level of funding they received is based on their proximity to London. I share her concern, we are looking at the data on that, and I am happy to work with her and the Committee on how we ensure that regional funding is more appropriately spread.
Alison Bennett (Mid Sussex) (LD)
Universal Quantum, born out of the University of Sussex, is based in my constituency. It is developing a unique trapped-ion modular technology for quantum computing at scale. It received $77 million from the German Government in 2022, and last week secured $100 million of Series A funding from investors, including the Singaporean Government. However, it has been unsuccessful in getting any funding from our own Government. Can the Minister explain how that tallies with their Department’s commitment to investing in exceptional home-grown companies?
Chris McDonald
The situation that the hon. Member described about the loss of UK quantum companies, largely under the previous Government, is exactly why my predecessor was determined to set up the ProQure programme, to ensure that the UK is leading the procurement of quantum computing and enabling the growth of UK businesses to do that. In March 2026, the Government announced a landmark commitment of up to £2 billion for the next stage of the national programme, and our ambition is to see UK quantum companies scale and stay in the UK.
Dr Peter Prinsley (Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket) (Lab)
The Minister for the Future of Work (Kate Dearden)
My hon. Friend’s question addresses a key aspect of our recent consultations, which proposed a duty for online marketplaces to take due care to identify, prevent and remove unsafe goods from their sites. The consultation package also proposed a modernised enforcement toolkit, and my intention is that future regulations will set out strong new duties on online marketplaces, backed by appropriate sanctions.
Dr Prinsley
Residents of Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket, like millions of us across the country, increasingly rely on online marketplaces for everyday purchases. However, the consumer magazine Which? continues to uncover dangerous products being sold on those platforms. Will the Minister ensure that forthcoming regulations place a clear legal duty on online marketplaces to identify and remove unsafe products, backed by meaningful penalties for those that fail to protect consumers?
Kate Dearden
I thank my hon. Friend for bringing this important issue to the House today, reflecting the changes in preferences of both his constituents and those across the country in how they buy products online and interact with online marketplaces. I also want to take this opportunity to thank Which? for the brilliant work it does in this space. Our recent consultations on modernising the product safety framework included proposals for clear duties on online marketplaces, including a clear duty to take due care to identify, prevent and remove unsafe goods from their sites. We also proposed a modernised enforcement toolkit, including civil monetary penalties to complement the existing criminal sanctions; fines would be set proportionally to risk and respond to an offence appropriately. We are also considering bespoke enforcement measures to ensure that online and international supply chain actors can be effectively addressed. We will respond to these consultations in due course, and I thank my hon. Friend for his engagement in this space.
Vikki Slade (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (LD)
Countless constituents have written to me about their concerns over the proliferation of high-powered e-bikes and e-scooters and conversion kits, many of which are bought online. I have been liaising with Currys, which is being as proactive as it can in making it clear to people through its point-of-sale material what the law is when people buy them in a shop; online, however, it is a wild west. Given the failures in the police cracking down on these vehicles where they are not permitted, will the Government consider limiting their online sales using the Product Regulation and Metrology Act 2025?
Kate Dearden
I thank the hon. Lady for raising this issue. I know that she and colleagues across the House have campaigned on this, and I share their concerns. In our recent consultation on reforming the product safety framework, we sought views on additional measures and responsibilities that are needed to improve the safety of products sold online, which included lithium-ion batteries and their use in consumer goods such as e-bikes. I would be happy to keep the hon. Lady updated on the progress on this work when we respond in due course.
Patrick Hurley (Southport) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Business, Innovation, Science and Trade (Jonathan Reynolds)
As we have heard, this new Department brings together a range of essential policy areas to back industries, technologies and jobs that will power future growth. For me, sustained economic growth can come only through greater private investment and private capital. The business investment figures for the UK are encouraging, with our industrial strategy using the policy tools at its disposal to attract more than £390 billion of private investment commitments since it came into force.
Patrick Hurley
I welcome the GDP figures that have been published this morning, but if we are serious about growth, we need to ramp up our manufacturing capacity and ensure that GDP growth is matched with jobs growth. Will the Secretary of State therefore consider setting an ambition of 1 million new manufacturing jobs in the next decade, putting reindustrialisation at the heart of the Government’s growth strategy?
Jonathan Reynolds
I warmly welcome my hon. Friend’s question on reindustrialisation, which is an essential part of the Government’s programme. Backing reindustrialisation does not mean that we do not recognise the tremendous contribution of services, and it is not nostalgia—it is about looking at the brilliant innovation that we have in the UK and seeing it scaled up. Doing so requires policy intervention, and I am extremely pleased that the British industrial competitiveness scheme will shortly come online, bringing down our energy and electricity prices for 10,000 British manufacturers and ending the situation we inherited from the Tories where we had the highest energy prices of any industrialised major nation. We do have to look at targets, and I will look at the one my hon. Friend has proposed, but I also think there are other areas we have to include in that to get the holistic impact that we need.
Max Wilkinson (Cheltenham) (LD)
The Golden Valley development in west Cheltenham enjoys the support of this Government—I can see the Minister smiling, because I have spoken to him about it a lot—and enjoyed the support of the previous Government, too. It is driven locally by the local council, and supported by businesses like the developer, HBD. It will generate 12,000 jobs and close to £1 billion of investment supporting our cyber and tech industry, and will crucially support the work of GCHQ. However, to really unlock the success of the development, we need to be given designated area status so that the local council can then start to reinvest in the local business community, as it has done so far at the development. Will the Secretary of State have a word with the Chancellor, ahead of the Budget, to see if we can bring about success in that bid?
Jonathan Reynolds
Everything the hon. Gentleman has said sounds hugely attractive to me. He has clearly already engaged with Government to some degree, but I will follow up on his question and see what we can do to support his local area.
Mark Garnier (Wyre Forest) (Con)
May I start by thanking the Secretary of State for his very measured and intelligent thoughts about the GDP growth rate? I lament that some others in his Government seem almost complacent about the International Monetary Fund’s increasing GDP growth expectations from 1% to just 1.3%, putting us second in the G7. Does that not show a certain lack of reality in the Government? What we should be looking for is GDP growth of more like 2.5%. The G20 is averaging 3.1%, and we are 14th in the G20. Does the Secretary of State recognise that over-regulating, over-taxing and charging too much for energy is holding back our great entrepreneurs and businesses, who could be delivering the GDP growth that this country really needs?
Jonathan Reynolds
I believe that the figures show a level of resilience in an extraordinarily difficult global climate. In terms of our ambitions, I am pleased that we are turning around the underperformance of the 14 years of Conservative government, but I want more, and I am ambitious and hungry for that.
In order to achieve that, the Government have already committed to certain interventions. Going back to my previous point, we inherited the highest industrial electricity prices of any developed nation, but we are bringing those down by a quarter for 10,000 British businesses. I want more progress in that space, and I will be speaking to the Chancellor about further work on that agenda.
We are bringing down the costs for business, giving them new markets through the success we have had with our trade deals, and ensuring that the regulatory system supports those objectives. All of that contributes to what I believe is a set of tremendous opportunities for the UK because of the assets that we have. We should be ambitious for the future.
Cat Eccles (Stourbridge) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Innovation, Science and Trade (Blair McDougall)
The Government are determined to tackle the scourge of late payments, which causes the closure of 14,000 businesses and costs the UK economy almost £11 billion a year. The Commercial Payments Bill currently progressing through Parliament will give the UK the strongest laws in the G7 and represents the most significant reform of payment practices in over 25 years. The Bill will ensure that small businesses spend more time on growing, investing and creating jobs and less time on chasing late payments.
Cat Eccles
Late payment destroys thousands of viable small firms each year, and poor practices have seen large firms using small suppliers as a free overdraft. In my constituency, the impact is felt by manufacturers and fabricators, with local metalwork and transport supply sectors facing the longest payment delays in the UK. How is the Minister ensuring that there is a change in payment culture and lifting that burden from small businesses?
Blair McDougall
My hon. Friend is absolutely right; I know from personal experience how frustrating it is to have large firms use small firms as a source of free finance. The Commercial Payments Bill will clamp down on late payments by introducing maximum payment terms, providing stronger rights to interest and strengthening the powers of the Small Business Commissioner. She is right about the need for a culture change. The message from Government is that this legislation and this change is coming, and large companies should get their payment practices in order right now.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
Rising business rates, wages going up, energy prices rising, national insurance contributions—all those things have an impact on small businesses. My small businesses talk to me about the very issue that the hon. Lady referred to: those who do not pay on time. What can be done to help firms who are not getting the money from the suppliers? Is there somewhere that they can refer to for help?
Blair McDougall
The hon. Gentleman is right to raise the issue. I know it is a huge problem in Northern Ireland, as it is in the rest of the UK. One of the great problems with the current system is that a small business has to be aggressive towards its own customers to chase those late payments. The Commercial Payments Bill will turn that power relationship on its head, and people will expect to be paid on time. If they are not, there will be mandatory interest on that.
Bill Esterson (Sefton Central) (Lab)
The Minister for the Future of Work (Kate Dearden)
I know all too well the devastating impact that rogue traders can have on constituents, having had similar discussions in my own constituency and with many colleagues across the House too. That is why my Department supported the independent furniture and home improvement ombudsman’s new approved code and payment protection scheme, backed by independent dispute resolution, to help hard-working families identify trusted traders and ensure that people can spend their money with greater confidence and security.
We remain committed to supporting the Competition and Markets Authority and local trading standards in their ability to impose penalties via the courts. This Labour Government are delivering everyday fixes to protect families and give them room to breathe.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Order. We need to move a bit faster, so questions and answers must be shorter.
Bill Esterson
My constituent Joanne paid £11,000 for a new kitchen. Her house was left in a terrible state and she was unable to get the builder to return to rectify the substandard work. It also turned out that he was associated with 21 other companies mostly in the building trade, many of which have been dissolved. The Minister mentioned quite rightly the new code for the home improvement sector, which will give confidence to consumers and support to reputable traders. Is more not needed to go after the cowboy builders to ensure that constituents such as Joanne can get the remedy that they so need?
Kate Dearden
I am sorry about that incident with my hon. Friend’s constituent. The damaging impact that that can have, making people who have saved their entire lives for home improvements feel robbed and unsafe in their homes, is dreadful. That is why we are taking action, starting with the backing of the furniture and home improvement ombudsman scheme. I am not complacent in this space: we are determined to ensure that customers know what protections are available and that they can use them with confidence. I look forward to working further in this area.
Sir Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)
Rogue traders operate with impunity in the park homes sector, yet the Government have refused to supply sufficient money to National Trading Standards to enable it to carry out a national investigation and bring those rogues to book. What is the Minister going to do about it?
Kate Dearden
Regrettably, trading standards has faced a real-terms funding cut of more than 50% since 2010, under the previous Government. The system is therefore under severe strain. I back the incredible work that it does across the country and know how much support it needs. That is why we are committed to backing it and those longer-terms plans to overhaul the wider consumer protection landscape and particularly trading standards to help it continue cracking on with its brilliant job.
Caroline Voaden (South Devon) (LD)
The Minister for Artificial Intelligence (Kanishka Narayan)
We work closely with the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero and Departments across Government to ensure that critical infrastructure developments are sustainable for local resource capacity. The planning system takes into account a number of those questions and ought to account for the long-term implications for water and wider resource supply. We have specifically designed our AI growth zones to be investments in areas where there is sufficient energy capacity and where infrastructure can be enhanced.
Caroline Voaden
Water UK says data centres in England are using about 6.6 million litres of drinking water a day and that is set to triple by 2030. Meanwhile, households in Devon and Cornwall have been under a hosepipe ban since August and businesses are now facing water restrictions. Given the dry weather that we have had and the fact there is probably a lot more to come, have the Government considered legislating to require new data centres to operate with low water dependency, particularly when they are being built in the south of England where water shortages will become even more pressing?
Kanishka Narayan
Let me say three things. First, it is important to be clear on the data. The estimates that we have at the moment suggest data centres account for approximately 0.2% of non-household water usage in England. Secondly, when people build data centres here, we want them to build in the light of our values and what local communities need. That, in turn, means investing, alongside technology infrastructure, in clean energy infrastructure and in wider resourcing locally. Thirdly, I am always keen on ideas for how further improvements and demand flexibility for both energy and water resources can be supported by data centres. I will continue to look at the ideas the hon. Lady has proposed.
Neil Duncan-Jordan (Poole) (Lab)
There are environmental consequences caused by the emergence of data centres. There are also overblown claims as to their ability to create large numbers of jobs. The biggest concern, however, is in whose interests they will operate. What steps are the Government taking to ensure that AI works for the people, not just for big tech companies?
Kanishka Narayan
I thank my hon. Friend, whose question is one we have discussed at length. The central point is that in the last wave of technology, we built neither public trust nor British technology. In this wave of AI, we are focused on building both trust and technology so we can have sovereign control over what we are building here.
Richard Quigley (Isle of Wight West) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Innovation, Science and Trade (Blair McDougall)
The industrial strategy sets out the Government’s long-term approach to boosting investment, productivity and growth, building on the UK’s industrial strengths, including advanced manufacturing. Through the complementary advanced manufacturing sector plan, backed by £4.3 billion of Government funding, we are helping manufacturers to grow and thrive.
Richard Quigley
May I say how shocked I am that the hon. Member for Hornchurch and Upminster (Julia Lopez) suggested that your appearance needed any augmentation, Madam Deputy Speaker? On the Isle of Wight, we are incredibly proud of our advanced manufacturing sector and, for an area of its size, the island has one of the biggest concentrations of advanced manufacturing and high-tech engineering jobs in the country. Employers on my side of the island are racing to employ under 25s. We always want to do more, so will the Minister set out how the Government’s drive to buy British, alongside their renewed commitment to strengthening our defence capabilities, will create new opportunities for island manufacturers to secure contracts, invest in growth and create the next generation of skilled jobs on the Isle of Wight?
Blair McDougall
My hon. Friend is absolutely right to highlight the huge opportunities for manufacturers on the Isle of Wight. We are determined to use procurement strategically, as other nations do, to back British industry. It is particularly important with shipbuilding. We are expanding the role of the National Shipbuilding Office to oversee that. The renewed investment in defence and shipbuilding will create opportunities across the maritime supply chain, including for the Wight Shipyard Co. and other island manufacturers.
Paula Barker (Liverpool Wavertree) (Lab)
The Minister for the Future of Work (Kate Dearden)
The Government are clear that Royal Mail’s quality of service has been unacceptable for too long. Royal Mail published a plan to improve reliability, and I have been frank in my conversations with the CEO that it now needs to increase the pace of improvement and deliver on that plan. I understand that there have been operational challenges in the Lark Lane and Liverpool North delivery offices, and I urge Royal Mail to improve its services for local people. It must do better.
Paula Barker
Royal Mail has failed to meet Ofcom delivery targets for first-class mail since 2017, yet over that time, Ofcom has allowed the price of a first-class stamp to increase by 166% and has relaxed targets. Royal Mail’s continual failure affects the most vulnerable groups in our society—those who receive letters about hospital appointments, court dates or social security decisions. These are arriving late. Much of the bulk mail lies outside the universal service obligation. Will the Government review both that and Ofcom’s remit, to ensure that Royal Mail provides a timely, affordable service for all post—one that does not prioritise parcels—and that failure is not rewarded?
Kate Dearden
I thank my hon. Friend for raising this issue in the House on behalf of her constituents and constituents across the country. Royal Mail’s service must improve quickly. Customers, particularly the most vulnerable, are being let down, and delayed letters, such as legal correspondence and hospital appointment letters, can have serious consequences. When people are paying more for postal services, they rightly expect reliable and timely delivery. The Government have been clear that Ofcom should carefully consider the role of bulk mail and whether additional regulatory measures are needed to secure high standards of reliability for all postal customers. Much of the correspondence that people rely on falls outside the current quality-of-service targets. We will continue to press for a reliable postal service that meets the needs of all users.
Mike Martin (Tunbridge Wells) (LD)
My question relates to the Tonbridge and Cranbrook delivery offices, which I know also deliver to your constituency, Madam Deputy Speaker. I ran a survey recently: 85% of people have experienced delays, 25% have missed a deadline or an appointment and, extraordinarily, 20% have experienced a three-week gap between postal deliveries. That is obviously totally unacceptable. Have the Government had conversations with Royal Mail specifically about the TN postcodes?
Kate Dearden
I thank the hon. Member for raising this issue on behalf of his constituents, and I share his concerns; I know from my own inbox, as a constituency MP, the challenges that arise when people do not receive their post on time and there are significant delays. I have been frank in my conversations with the CEO of Royal Mail that its service has been unacceptable for too long and that the pace of improvement must improve. The public and his constituents deserve a reliable postal service, and they are right to expect better. If he wants to share those data with me and with Royal Mail, and add to that pressure, I would welcome that.
Noah Law (St Austell and Newquay) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Innovation, Science and Trade (Blair McDougall)
Place is central to the industrial strategy. We have been working with Plymouth and the south-west peninsula to support the development of distinctive nationally significant clusters. I visited Plymouth and Cornwall earlier this year to meet the freeport, understand the opportunities around marine autonomy and see for myself Cornwall’s incredible critical mineral potential.
Noah Law
As you know, Madam Deputy Speaker, in Cornwall we have a resurgent minerals industry, which can make our country and our communities wealthy once again, but we can only do that if we process what we dig out of the ground. Having strong supply chains is therefore imperative from a national security and a resilience perspective. What steps is the Minister taking, together with No. 10 North, the Treasury and other Departments, to ensure that the key investment case for our area—including the missing midstream, which is battery active material production—will prevent us from having to ship that wealth abroad and will ensure that we create Cornish jobs back home?
Blair McDougall
My hon. Friend and the other Cornish Labour MPs are incredible advocates for critical minerals and their potential in the UK. Projects in that part of the world are essential to our ambitions. We are supporting lithium projects in Cornwall, including through an offer in principle of £9.8 million through DRIVE35 for Geothermal Engineering Ltd, as well as a £31 million equity investment in Cornish lithium through the National Wealth Fund. We will continue to work to ensure that we keep more of that value in the UK.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
The Minister for the Future of Work (Kate Dearden)
The Government recognise the vital role that post offices play in communities across the UK. We have committed to maintaining the 11,500 national minimum branch requirement, and the Government’s set access criteria, including the requirement that for 90% of the population, their nearest post office should be within one mile of where they live. We are backing this with up to £180 million in network subsidy funding over the next three years to support the cost of meeting those policy requirements, protecting access to crucial services.
Rachael Maskell
When York’s Crown post office closed after 138 years, we were given assurances that through WHSmith, we would have a sustained solution. However, Modella Capital, which has taken over WHSmith, closed the post office yesterday. We only have a teeny weeny post office in the city centre. Businesses, residents and tourists are dependent on it—we need a solution. I have met the Post Office; it says that it will take six months to get a solution. I need a solution now. What steps will the Minister take to ensure that we have a temporary solution before we get our sustained outcome?
Kate Dearden
I recognise my hon. Friend’s concerns about the availability of post office services in York city centre in the coming months. The Post Office has confirmed that it remains committed to providing a replacement branch, and it has received interest from several potential applicants. While these are operational matters for the Post Office, I will ask it to consider capacity concerns. I will keep my hon. Friend updated, and will ask officials to work with her and the Post Office on finding the temporary solution that she rightly mentions.
Olly Glover (Didcot and Wantage) (LD)
The Minister for Artificial Intelligence (Kanishka Narayan)
We already have a series of areas of regulatory focus for artificial intelligence—data protection, competition policy, equality legislation and online safety. I was particularly proud that we were one of the first countries to ensure that the egregious impacts of AI chatbots on our children were mitigated. As I mentioned earlier in the week, I am looking forward to working right across the House on any further regulatory measures required to tackle any harms from artificial intelligence.
Olly Glover
AI has the potential to transform science and research, including on campuses such as Harwell and Culham in my Oxfordshire constituency. However, those benefits will be realised only if the risks of AI are taken seriously. Will the Minister support the call of over 85 parliamentarians for the Government to use our 2027 G20 presidency to champion an international agreement to properly regulate AI and prohibit super-intelligent AI development?
Kanishka Narayan
I thank the hon. Member for raising the advances of Culham in particular. I visited the site; I take great pride in it, as a national asset when it comes to nuclear fusion and the combination of AI and energy innovation. On his point about the G20, I am proud that the Prime Minister has set out that AI will be top of the agenda. We will look to play a leadership role in ensuring that we arrive at a global code and principles for safe AI.
Sir Julian Smith (Skipton and Ripon) (Con)
The Minister for the Future of Work (Kate Dearden)
Hospitality businesses are at the heart of our high streets, communities and local economies, supporting jobs and growth across the UK, and we recognise the pressures that many continue to face. That is why we are providing targeted support for pubs, clubs and live music venues, including 15% business rates relief in 2026-27, and an additional 20% discount from April next year, while reviewing pub and hotel valuations to help ensure a fairer and more predictable business rates system. We are also investing £10 million through a new hospitality grant scheme to support growth, create jobs and strengthen local economies.
Sir Julian Smith
As the Minister knows, in areas like mine, the hospitality sector provides the bulk of employment for young people. Can I urge her to look at the Opposition Front Benchers’ proposals, and proposals from UKHospitality, for a lower NICs rate to be provided at the upcoming Budget, to allow those businesses to employ more young people?
Kate Dearden
I thank the right hon. Member for raising this. Hospitality, as he mentioned, is an absolute key employer of young people in the economy, providing rewarding routes into work. It is a critical sector to help us resolve the NEETs—not in education, employment or training—crisis. That is a key priority for this Government, and we want to work closely with the sector on providing those solutions. I am sure that he will welcome the announcement today of our significant intervention and partnership with the hospitality sector; we are working closely with UKHospitality. We are working on providing job opportunities and new work experience programmes to turn this around, and hospitality is key to that.
Jacob Collier (Burton and Uttoxeter) (Lab)
I thank Ministers for their engagement following Carlsberg’s devastating news about the closure of Marston’s brewery next year, which risks 310 jobs and the future of heritage ales from Burton, such as Pedigree and Bass. Hospitality relies on brewing, but brewing was left out of the industrial strategy and industrial energy schemes. Will that now be changed?
Kate Dearden
My heart sank when I heard the news, and I pay tribute to my hon. Friend, not only for raising this today, but for all his work in the sector on behalf of his constituents since first coming to this House. I spoke with the chief executive of Carlsberg Britvic yesterday, and I know that the proposal to close the brewery has not been made lightly. He reassured me that the team at Burton have shown exceptional commitment, skill and professionalism, and have made an enormous contribution to Burton upon Trent’s proud brewing tradition. This proposal is not a reflection on them or the quality of their work. Consumer tastes are constantly evolving, and this proposal reflects the particular long-term challenges relating to cask ale, which I have spoken to my hon. Friend about, and on which I will continue to work with him closely. I know that this will be a concerning time for workers at Marston’s. We recognise the impact that these proposals may have on those workers, their families and the local community as the company begins consulting, and I look forward to discussing this further with him.
Bradley Thomas (Bromsgrove) (Con)
The hospitality sector provides around 300,000 jobs for young people every year and contributes £96 billion annually to the economy. Despite that, the Government continue to hammer it with a series of blows, to the extent that the sector has the highest effective tax rate of any sector in the economy, paying the equivalent of 82p in taxes for every £1 of pre-tax profit made. That eclipses the 50p average rate across our economy’s 11 main sectors. What steps are the Government taking to tangibly lower business costs, so that hospitality businesses can employ more young people?
Kate Dearden
My first job was in hospitality; I remember it fondly. It has given me skills that I have used throughout my career and life, and it supported my family when we really needed it. I absolutely know the significance and importance of this sector to our economy, and the difference that it can make to people’s lives. It is a key employer of young people across the country—in the hon. Member’s constituency, in mine and in the constituencies of colleagues across the House. It provides a rewarding route into work and is a critical sector to resolving the NEETs crisis and many challenges that we face across the country.
As we grow our economy, we want to grow the hospitality sector. I work really closely with the sector and the Hospitality Sector Council to ensure that we look at all the challenges, and at how we can work together to provide more opportunities and jobs and grow the sector in every constituency across this country. I am determined to deliver that.
Freddie van Mierlo (Henley and Thame) (LD)
The Secretary of State for Business, Innovation, Science and Trade (Jonathan Reynolds)
I have just led one of the largest trade missions we have ever sent to India, which is the fastest-growing economy in the G20. I was joined by northern mayors, the Environment Secretary, the Scotland Secretary and a Great North delegation of more than 200 businesses. We announced over £1 billion-worth of new deals, benefiting a host of British firms, including Menzies Aviation, Panakeia and Oxford Nanopore Technologies. Since our trade agreement was signed, £12 billion in new business has been announced, supporting thousands of jobs and driving good growth in every postcode of our country.
During the visit, I co-chaired the Joint Economic and Trade Committee with Minister Goyal on tackling any remaining trade barriers. With our northern mayors, we also launched the UK-Maharashtra growth partnership, to foster closer regional ties and drive the creation of high-value jobs in both our countries. This is just the start. Our free trade agreement is forecast to boost bilateral trade by over £25 billion a year. We have opened the door, and businesses are walking through it, with Government backing them every step of the way.
Freddie van Mierlo
The Diamond Light Source facility and ISIS Neutron and Muon Source facility neighbour my constituency of Henley and Thame. They are on the frontline of cuts to the Science and Technology Facilities Council, and now there are concerns that further savings may be required. Can the Minister confirm to the House today that those facilities will remain open and operational to the end of the financial year, and through to 2028?
Jonathan Reynolds
I am grateful for the hon. Member’s championing of science. I revert to the comments I made about the scale of investment this Government are making in science and research and development, and the prioritisation of funding, which comes from a science-based assessment. There is an element of funding for the defence package that we had to find from the former Department for Science, Innovation and Technology budget. I will write to him about any concerns he has, but I reiterate that this is a Government and a country that are committed to science.
Alex McIntyre (Gloucester) (Lab)
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Questions should be really on point.
The Minister for the Future of Work (Kate Dearden)
I thank my hon. Friend and Labour colleagues for their work on this. I agree that the Royal Mail service has been unacceptable for too long, and that the pace of improvement must increase, and my constituents share exactly the same frustrations. The Government expect Ofcom to use its full range of existing tools to secure better outcomes for postal users, and I will continue to work closely with it and with colleagues in the House to deliver that.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I call the shadow Secretary of State.
Julia Lopez (Hornchurch and Upminster) (Con)
The Secretary of State confessed last month that business leaders have urged him not to return to the political uncertainty around our relationship with the EU. The Prime Minister has now completely ignored him, and them, and says that the UK could pursue a customs union or a single market, or go all the way back in. He clearly was not in the 2017 to 2019 Parliament; he has barely been in this one. Will the Secretary of State tell businesses what the Prime Minister’s preferred option is?
Jonathan Reynolds
I am grateful for that question. I am proud of the trade deals that this Government have done with the rest of the world—we have talked about India, the Gulf, South Korea and Switzerland—and we have retained membership of the comprehensive and progressive agreement for trans-Pacific partnership. However, there is uncertainty from action taken on the European side; that is the Prime Minister’s point. The “Made in Europe” agenda is one of great uncertainty for UK businesses. It is primarily about automative and aerospace at this stage, but it runs through some 50 different bits of EU legislation. The Prime Minister is right to have the aspiration for a closer trading relationship with the EU—I support that entirely—that is consistent with our work with the rest of the world. We must get to a point where we remove uncertainty by getting clarity on what this will mean for the long-term future of our relationship with the European Union.
Julia Lopez
The Secretary of State could not say what the Prime Minister’s preferred relationship is, and I think that is because the Prime Minister himself does not actually have a clue. Today, the Business Secretary trumpeted the free trade agreement struck with India; he took northern mayors, and a rep from Man City, on his trip this week to expand that. Sir Keir Starmer spoke about his pride and relief at telling Jaguar Land Rover workers that he had struck a trade deal on cars with America that would save their jobs. Those deals are possible because we are not in the EU. Can the Secretary of State guarantee that in the UK-EU trade talks that are under way, the Prime Minister will offer no concessions that could jeopardise our non-EU trade deals?
Jonathan Reynolds
First, we took 200 businesses to India; the mayors took their own delegation. The Manchester City representative came with the Mayor of Greater Manchester, rather than with me. I wish to put that on the record to avoid any lack of clarity. A lot of what the Conservative Government promised on trade but were not able to deliver has been delivered by this Government, and of course I am proud of that. The fact is that the Prime Minister is right to have that aspiration for a closer trading relationship—seven of our top-10 trading partners are other EU member states—and to seek clarity for the future. That is what he is doing, and I support him in that.
Chris Ward (Brighton Kemptown and Peacehaven) (Lab)
Jonathan Reynolds
I recognise the specific issues in Brighton, and what the closure of R-Bar and Charles Street Tap will mean for Brighton’s LGBTQ+ community. The Government recognise the needs of hospitality. We have talked in this Question Time about lower business rates, and about the doubling of the employment allowance. Of course I want to work with my hon. Friend, and I am grateful to him for raising this issue directly with me. No one ever turns down a visit to Brighton, so we will see if we can get that sorted.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)
On Monday, the Prime Minister joined the Liberal Democrats in acknowledging that refusing to countenance closer UK relations with the EU would be a “dereliction of duty”, yet the Government remain committed to their red lines. Joining the single market and a new UK-EU customs union could boost UK GDP by at least 3.6% and result in around £27 billion a year in extra tax revenue. Does the Secretary of State agree that refusing to cross those red lines, while knowing the damage that Brexit continues to cause businesses up and down the country, is in fact a dereliction of duty?
Jonathan Reynolds
In my first year doing this job, after the election, there was some mixed advice from Liberal Democrats on trade at various times, particularly on our engagement with the US and the EU. I believe that our package of measures that forms the basis of the UK-EU reset is ambitious. As for what the sanitary and phytosanitary agreement would mean for small businesses in the hon. Lady’s constituency, and for us all, it would make a fundamental difference. Of course we are right to recognise that the situation has been very hard for business, and there is more red tape for people exporting to our major export market, but at times I get frustrated when people do not acknowledge that the things that already form part of those negotiations would make a difference to British businesses. We will have more ambitions, and our own views on how things should go, but there is an ambitious package that we should all get behind.
Callum Anderson (Buckingham and Bletchley) (Lab)
The Minister for Science, Innovation and Investment (Chris McDonald)
I commend my hon. Friend on the work of the Bletchley investment taskforce and I thank him for the many letters that he has sent me updating me on its work. I have learned about Bletchley’s strengths in innovation, advanced manufacturing and digital technologies, which are all aligned with our industrial strategy, so of course I would be keen to come and meet the investment taskforce. Perhaps we can talk about how the work of the Oxford-Cambridge growth corridor can link in and bring more investment to Bletchley too.
Martin Vickers (Brigg and Immingham) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Innovation, Science and Trade (Blair McDougall)
I, too, was in Scunthorpe recently meeting British Steel management and the unions. The positive news we can give them is that Alan Lovell is now in place as chair, and he is working hard to stabilise operations, improve health and safety, and develop the long-term plan that the hon. Gentleman has worked so hard on with to achieve.
Daniel Francis (Bexleyheath and Crayford) (Lab)
Over the past year, I have also had countless constituents contact me about the adequacy of postal delivery services across Bexleyheath and Crayford. Along with colleagues, I met the chief executive of Ofcom yesterday to look at what more it can do, but will the Minister outline what assessment has been made of the adequacy of services across Bexleyheath and Crayford and set out what more the Government can do to help my constituents?
Kate Dearden
I thank my hon. Friend for raising this matter on behalf of his constituents. I know that he shares their frustrations. I have been clear with Royal Mail that the quality of its service has been unacceptable for too long. I understand that the concerns in his constituency relate to the Bexleyheath delivery office and I know that he met Royal Mail representatives this summer. I encourage all Members to raise their concerns directly with Royal Mail management and similarly hold the company to account, as I will continue to do. His constituents deserve a reliable postal service, and they are right that they deserve better.
Robert Jenrick (Newark) (Reform)
Sean Egan from Morrisons in Walsall, Gary MacArthur from Sainsbury’s in Wickham and Jorge Costa from Sainsbury’s in Hertford are all workers who were sacked by their employers for confronting shoplifters. In Gary’s case, that happened just hours after he had applied CPR to the store’s only security guard, who would otherwise have died. Does the Secretary of State agree with me that those workers deserve their jobs back, and that we need greater protection for workers who just do the right thing and confront shoplifters?
Jonathan Reynolds
I am more than happy to look into the cases that the right hon. Gentleman raises, and we will be in touch with him about them.
Josh Newbury (Cannock Chase) (Lab)
When I visited Alpro and Navara Oat Milling over the summer, I heard how rising energy costs are putting pressure on food manufacturers, with knock-on effects for their supply chain and, ultimately, food inflation. Given the importance of these energy-intensive industries to our economy, how is the Department helping British manufacturers remain competitive, attract investment and mitigate rising food production costs?
Blair McDougall
My hon. Friend is a great champion for that sector. The British industrial competitiveness scheme is now open. In addition, we will be reviewing the British industry supercharger later in the year and we will be working closely with the food manufacturing sector as we do that.
Chris Law (Dundee Central) (SNP)
As well as breaking the UK’s legally binding climate commitments and contributing to a global climate disaster, the approval of Rosebank will result in the UK continuing to facilitate illegal Israeli settlements in Palestine and being complicit in breaches of international law. Israeli energy company Delek Group, which owns Ithaca Energy, has been named in the United Nations list of businesses whose activities in the west bank have raised particular human rights concerns, and it has received over £200 million in revenue from the Rosebank field. Given that Norway’s sovereign wealth fund and largest pension fund have already divested from Delek, will the Secretary of State confirm that Delek Group Ltd will be one of the companies sanctioned for its role in illegal settlement expansion?
Jonathan Reynolds
The hon. Gentleman knows that the licensing of North sea oilfields is a matter for the Energy Secretary. In relation to his point about our announcement on sanctions for illegal Israeli settlements, we have made a clear and consistent stand. We have talked about how the legal regime for that will be the SAMLA—Sanctions and Anti-Money Laundering Act 2018—regime. That will provide more certainty and it will have real consequences—it is not just a symbolic gesture. I will not comment on any individual company, but if the hon. Gentleman’s intentions and aspirations are for strong action in this area, this Government are providing it.
Henry Tufnell (Mid and South Pembrokeshire) (Lab)
I welcome the Government’s support for British industry, including through the British industrial competitiveness scheme. However, the fact that the oil refinery sector is not included in that scheme threatens thousands of jobs and our national energy security. Will the Secretary of State consider expanding the scope of the scheme and reviewing its broader eligibility requirements?
Blair McDougall
I thank my hon. Friend for his consistent support for the refining industry. I have been meeting with the industry this week to discuss issues such as the energy issues that he mentions. We recognise that the sector faces real challenges. The work to consider the impacts and the feasibility of bringing refined products, for example, into the scope of the UK carbon border adjustment mechanism is ongoing, and we will certainly continue to engage with him on energy costs and other issues.
Tessa Munt (Wells and Mendip Hills) (LD)
I have been contacted by Petruth Paddocks, a family-run camping business on the outskirts of Cheddar, which welcomes more than 20,000 visitors a year and supports more than 50 jobs. Its business rates liability this year has increased by almost 2,700%, from £1,070 per annum to £28,820 per annum, with no meaningful warning and no chance to plan for this catastrophic hike. Will a Minister or the Secretary of State meet me to discuss what can be done in rural Somerset, where so many businesses depend on hospitality and tourism? They really cannot take this kind of kicking.
Jonathan Reynolds
Those are obviously dramatic figures —I assume that they have happened through revaluation. I will endeavour to get the hon. Lady in contact perhaps with the Treasury, rather than this Department, to support her constituency.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I call the Chair of the Select Committee.
Liam Byrne (Birmingham Hodge Hill and Solihull North) (Lab)
On Tuesday, the head of MI5 warned that AI could help terrorists to develop bioweapons. In the Select Committee, OpenAI and Anthropic told us that statutory AI safety controls are now essential. We are blessed to have the AI Security Institute in this country, but it is no longer enough. Will Ministers confirm that we will have Government amendments on Report of the Cyber Security and Resilience (Network and Information Systems) Bill to ensure that we have statutory AI protections to keep this country safe?
The Minister for Artificial Intelligence (Kanishka Narayan)
I thank my right hon. Friend for his advocacy and leadership on this matter over the course of the last many weeks. I have mentioned already this week that I want to work with parliamentarians across the House, including him and members of his Committee, on ideas for the Cyber Security and Resilience (Network and Information Systems) Bill, looking in particular at AI security protections.
Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)
A lot of work is being done in Scotland—in Edinburgh, Glasgow and elsewhere—to develop a space culture, with space technology and satellite technology. With the controversy this week about potential interference in the Ukrainian war effort using satellite technology, do the Government intend to step up investment and support for research and development in this area, in the interests of our own national security?
Jonathan Reynolds
I was very much hoping for a space question, so I am very grateful to the hon. Lady. Space technology is one of the most exciting and fundamental horizontal technologies for our economy; I recently attended the International Space Summit in Paris to hear about that. We have launched our space strategy, and Scotland is key to that. She will know about the SaxaVord launch capacity investment. I assure her that we will keep her involved in the progress of this successful strategy.
Leigh Ingham (Stafford) (Lab)
It will surprise no one in this House to hear that I believe growth in every postcode should start in our towns. Will the Minister tell me what we are doing to support brilliant businesses such as Hill Helicopters in my constituency to grow, thrive and export?
Blair McDougall
I spent a fantastic day with the aerospace industry last week. Over and over again, they spoke so enthusiastically about the Aerospace Technology Institute and the investment that we are putting into the sector. I pay tribute to the company that my hon. Friend mentions in her constituency. Advanced manufacturing of all sorts is one of the things that we are really great at in this country, which is why we are backing it with the industrial strategy.
Mr Will Forster (Woking) (LD)
Last month, McLaren announced a £500 million investment, which will create 1,000 jobs. That is particularly beneficial in my constituency, and I know that the Secretary of State visited the constituency to share in that good news. What steps are he and the Government taking to ensure that McLaren and other businesses can expand in that way?
Jonathan Reynolds
It is always a pleasure to visit McLaren, and I was delighted that it was part of an investment in the automotive sector in this month alone of £850 million. Those incredibly strong and supportive investments reflect the incentives we have put in place in the industrial strategy. I know that there is a specific issue locally with ensuring that that investment happens, and we will talk to the company about that. Our trade, innovation and wider business agenda is all about supporting successful businesses.
Markus Campbell-Savours (Penrith and Solway) (Lab)
Will the Secretary of State join me in congratulating Malcolm Wilson OBE and the team at M-Sport in Dovenby on re-securing the Ford world rally car championship programme, creating new skilled jobs for Cumbria? Can he also tell us what support the Department can provide to help high-performance automotive firms such as M-Sport create skilled apprenticeships for our young people?
Jonathan Reynolds
I thoroughly endorse what my hon. Friend has said—I believe that he and I once campaigned quite close to where that business is based. It is brilliant news, and reflects the tremendous industrial heritage of Cumbria.
Susan Murray (Mid Dunbartonshire) (LD)
I suspect I am going to add to the Secretary of State’s frustration when I ask on behalf of Scottish food and drink exporters, who still face paperwork and border checks that did not exist before breakfast—before Brexit—[Laughter.]
Susan Murray
Hungry, yes. If growth is the mission, will the Secretary of State open talks on a customs union with the EU?
Jonathan Reynolds
We can all go for breakfast soon. Of course, I understand the hon. Lady’s point, particularly on food and agriculture—addressing that is part of the EU-UK reset. I would also point her to, for instance, the tremendous opportunities we have created, such as reducing the tariff on Scottish whisky in India from 150% to 75% and then 40% in time. Scottish salmon is also part of that, so I promise the hon. Lady that we are always championing the interests of her constituents in every market.
Alison Hume (Scarborough and Whitby) (Lab)
Boulby underground laboratory in North Yorkshire is competing to host XLZD, a prestigious physics experiment that could deliver Nobel prize-winning discoveries in the UK. In the light of the Science and Technology Facilities Council cuts, can the Minister reaffirm the Government’s commitment to securing the XLZD dark matter experiment for the UK?
Chris McDonald
It is quite a number of years since I was underground at Boulby, but I do remember the experience and how important that dark matter laboratory is. The particular issue at the Boulby mine is that it has increased its capacity, so its rental charges have gone up, and within the scope of its existing budget, that means about half a million pounds of its £1 million operating budget has been taken forward into the £4 million overall budget it has. The Government have funded the development of the laboratory that my hon. Friend describes until 2027-28; if the UK is successful, though, that would require additional funding above and beyond existing budgets.
Ms Julie Minns (Carlisle) (Lab)
There is much interest from aerospace companies in the 1950s Blue Streak launch facilities at RAF Spadeadam in my constituency. What assessment has been made of the potential of UK sites for developing heavy-lift rocket testing in the UK, and will the Minister meet me to discuss the potential of Spadeadam?
Chris McDonald
Spadeadam is, of course, another amazing facility that I have visited in recent years. My hon. Friend is quite right: there is the potential there, and I agree that a full assessment of that potential must be made, alongside that of our other launch facility in the Shetland Islands.
Euan Stainbank (Falkirk) (Lab)
With Syngenta ending its Grangemouth operations despite the Government’s substantial offer to intervene, we have a narrow window to avoid this incredibly well-positioned site lying vacant. What interventions are the Government prepared to make to seriously secure new industry and new jobs for this site and, more broadly, the Grangemouth industrial complex this side of 2030?
Blair McDougall
My hon. Friend is a constant advocate for the Grangemouth site. Last night, I and my officials met representatives of the National Wealth Fund and the Office for Investment to push forward on this. We have a taskforce meeting on Monday at which, among other things, we will be pushing for faster action to prepare the groundwork for investment, so that we can deploy the £200 million from the National Wealth Fund that we have set aside.
Jayne Kirkham (Truro and Falmouth) (Lab/Co-op)
Truro lost its post office last week as well, without a temporary alternative. Will the Minister consider consulting with the Post Office on alternatives when this happens in main cities and looking again at the franchise model, which seems to leave post office branches very vulnerable?
Kate Dearden
I thank my hon. Friend for bringing this matter to my attention, and I would be more than happy to meet her to discuss it further.
Perran Moon (Camborne and Redruth) (Lab)
Plans to revive Cornish tin and tungsten mining are well advanced with the support of the National Wealth Fund. However, if tin or tungsten were to be brought to the surface today, it would have to be shipped to the other side of the world for refining and processing, with only a fraction coming back to the UK at seriously increased cost. When Cornish MPs meet the Minister next week, can we discuss plans from Government to invest in domestic refinement of tin and tungsten?
Blair McDougall
We will absolutely discuss that. As my hon. Friend knows—because he talks to me about this issue at every available opportunity—we are determined to make sure that more of the value of that entire process remains in the UK, which is why we are putting £50 million on the table for exactly that sort of development work.
Ian Lavery (Blyth and Ashington) (Lab)
The Royal Mail sorting offices in my patch are in absolute chaos—they are in meltdown—and I am really concerned that someone will end up in a tragic situation because of the lack of service. I have met Royal Mail on numerous occasions and there has been no change whatsoever—in fact, the service is getting worse. What can the Minister do to remedy the situation before somebody needs to be held accountable for a very serious situation?
Kate Dearden
I share my hon. Friend’s frustrations and concerns. Whether it is the biggest issue in my inbox and my constituency or from what I have heard from colleagues across the House, it is clear that Royal Mail has to do better, and I have been frank in my discussions with Royal Mail’s chief executive officer that it must deliver improvements at a much quicker pace. I will continue working with my hon. Friend to ensure that we can deliver for his constituents and those across the country who need a reliable postal service.
Sustainable Farming Incentive
(1 day, 9 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
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 the sustainable farming incentive.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Stephen Morgan)
In summer 2024, we inherited a sustainable farming incentive scheme from the previous Conservative Government that had no budget control and no proper alignment of SFI actions to environmental sustainability targets. The farming schemes were underspent, meaning that millions of pounds were not going to farming businesses.
This Government implemented many improvements to the sustainable farming incentive 2026 to make it more focused, more transparent and fairer, so that as many farmers as possible could benefit from agreements. For example, we introduced the new rule that each farm business could have only one SFI26 agreement, which cannot exceed £100,000 per year. We also streamlined the number of SFI actions to remove complexity while still having plenty of actions available for all farm types.
We held the first application window earlier in the summer, which was open only to two groups: small farms and farms without existing environmental land management revenue agreements. Window 2 of the sustainable farming incentive 2026 opened on the morning of Tuesday 22 September 2026 and closed at 3.48 pm on the same day. It was open to all farmers and land managers with at least three hectares of agricultural land.
I recognise that some farmers who wanted to join SFI26 will be disappointed not to have secured an agreement this year. There was exceptional demand for SFI26, which demonstrates farmers’ desire to invest in the environment, because healthy soils and thriving habitats are fundamental to farm profitability, productivity, sustainability and resilience.
In anticipation of high demand, we allocated an additional £20 million to window 2 on top of the £50 million announced by the Prime Minister in August so that we could fund as many agreements as possible. We have therefore allocated a total of £310 million to nearly 19,000 new agreements across both application windows in SFI26, including £253 million and 12,200 new agreements through window 2.
We now have 70,000 multi-year environmental land management scheme agreements in place. Those agreements will invest a total of £930 million in environmentally sustainable farming over the next three years. That is nearly £1 billion of investment in nature-friendly farming as part of £11.8 billion in funding for sustainable farming in this Parliament.
We plan to offer an SFI scheme in 2027, and we will look to open the 2027 offer as early as possible to ensure that farmers can access funding. We are already looking to make changes to improve the SFI for next year, continuing our close work with farmers and stakeholders by listening to experiences and learning lessons from this window.
In keeping with the commitments made in “Farming Roadmap 2050”, we plan to offer an SFI scheme in 2027. As part of that, we will scrap the first come, first served application process. We will look to open the 2027 window as early as possible to ensure that farmers can access funding and we will work with farming representative organisations including the National Farmers Union to consider how we refine the scheme for SFI27. As set out in the farming road map published earlier this year, the Government are committed to a farming sector that is productive, profitable and resilient.
Robbie Moore
I cannot stress enough just how badly mishandled the sustainable farming incentive has been under this Labour Government. It has been a complete and utter mess, and our hard-working farmers and nature have once again lost out under this Labour Government. However, it was not without this Government having lots of warning well in advance. After 18 months of inaction following the Government’s choice to close the scheme in March 2025, for the first time ever the scheme was changed to operate on a first come, first served basis, making it competitive with no quality control. It was simply based on who could press “Send” first. The consequence was a build-up of nearly 40,000 farmers trying to get into the scheme when it finally opened, and only 12,200 were successful. The application window closed five and a half hours after it opened, after all the money had gone. Farmers had been designing their applications for months, and many are now under more financial and emotional strain.
Given that the value of the expiring agreements was more than £520 million and the budget for SFI26 was significantly reduced to £310 million, can the Minister explain where the £210 million has gone? With so many farmers being locked out of the scheme, clarity and certainty for next steps is needed now. Will he confirm when applications for SFI27 will open? Will he publish a forward plan now so that farmers can start preparing? What support will he give to those with expiring agreements to minimise gaps in cash flow? What budget has he allocated for SFI27 so that he can be certain that we will not see this same debacle all over again?
The farming Minister has now had a month to reflect on these issues. Our farmers want answers now—not more warm words or him giving out surveys, saying that he is in listening mode. Answers are needed right now to the questions that have been raised.
Stephen Morgan
I am not going to claim that this scheme is perfect or working as we want it to work, but we inherited this scheme from the previous Government, and we are fixing it. Under them, just a quarter of the funding went to 4% of farms, often large ones, with no targeting. We have already made changes to address that; there was a window earlier this year specifically for small farms and those that had not participated in the scheme before. If the Conservatives thought the scheme was not working, why did they not do anything to fix it in their years in power? If they did not think that it should be a first come, first served approach, why did they not change it?
I noticed that the shadow Environment Secretary, the right hon. Member for Louth and Horncastle (Victoria Atkins) said at party conference:
“After 18 months of inaction, Labour chose to design this scheme, for the first time ever, on a first-come, first-served basis.”
That simply is not true, and I encourage the shadow Minister to correct the record. It is a bit rich for the hon. Gentleman to come here today with all these different things. He could have changed things when he had the opportunity to do so. The Conservatives could not even get all the funding out the door. They left money on the table when it should have been going into farmers’ pockets. I will not accept the criticism. This scheme was designed by them, but we are fixing it, and that is what I will continue doing.
Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)
The plain truth is that, when the Conservatives introduced this scheme in the previous Parliament, it was a complex scheme and the IT systems in particular were not in place to administer it properly. Conservative Front Benchers know that. These IT systems take years to develop. Colleagues at the Rural Payments Agency have done a heroic job working around the existing systems. That is why it is so difficult to make this scheme work in the difficult circumstances across the country. Does my hon. Friend agree that a little contrition from the Conservatives would be welcome as we try to fix this system?
Stephen Morgan
I place on record the hard work that my hon. Friend undertook as Minister of State in the Department. He was a tremendous contributor to many of the things that I have now inherited to deliver for our country. He is absolutely right to point out the hypocrisy of the Conservatives on the SFI scheme. I remind him that it was Michael Gove who I think first introduced the first come, first served approach. I also pay tribute to those at the RPA. They have worked incredibly hard with the level of applications and demand we have seen with this scheme. I look forward to working with my hon. Friend as we make further improvements to ensure the success of the scheme next year.
Sarah Dyke (Glastonbury and Somerton) (LD)
SFI is the foundation of a resilient food system, and it delivers for nature. When it closed without warning last year, the Liberal Democrats warned of the damage to farm finances and our environmental goals. Farmers now face a two-tier system once again.
Clare farms near Puckington. Her countryside stewardship scheme agreement is ending, and SFI was meant to be her way forward. Farmers deserve better than a Glastonbury ticket scramble, so I welcome the end of “first come, first served”, but having a fairer queue for the same small pot just changes who gets turned away. The Liberal Democrats would back farmers with an extra £1 billion a year to produce food and protect nature, not choose between them. With the Budget just two weeks away, will the Minister back our call and press the Chancellor to fund SFI properly?
Stephen Morgan
I thank the Liberal Democrat spokesperson for her contribution, and for the constructive way that she has engaged with me and my Department on these issues. I absolutely recognise that it has been an incredibly challenging time for farmers, and I mentioned some of the funding that we have put into sustainable funding—£11.8 billion over this Parliament. I also mentioned the significant figure that has been provided via various schemes: £2.3 billion has been made available for the farming budget this year. I will certainly take on board the points that the hon. Lady has made, and reflect on them as we design the scheme for next year. I look forward to working closely with her on the next steps.
Markus Campbell-Savours (Penrith and Solway) (Lab)
Is it not time we simply admitted that the SFI experiment has failed? The last Government could not get the money out the door, and we now have an IT system that is so bad that we may as well not have a door. Farmers do not believe that the SFI is fair. They do not believe that it is getting to those who need support, or that it is delivering the public goods intended. Perhaps we should start again and reconsider a universal baseline, with best practice conditions.
Stephen Morgan
My hon. Friend has yet to write to me on any issues that his farmers have raised about SFI26, and I encourage him to do so. I meant it when I said in my opening remarks that I am really keen to work in partnership with others to design a scheme that works for all farmers next year. I look forward to his proactive engagement with me in order to get the scheme right next year.
Madam Deputy Speaker
I call the Chair of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee.
Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)
How many applications did the Department expect to receive when it opened the window? The farming software platform Soil Benchmark publicly estimated that there would be about 40,000 applications, and it thought that there would be a budget for about 15,000 successful ones. In the event, it was about 12,000. If Soil Benchmark could do that calculation, why did the Department not do so? Or did the Department do that calculation and then open the scheme in the knowledge that approximately two thirds to three quarters of applicants would be disappointed at the end of it?
Stephen Morgan
I thank the Chair of the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee for his measured intervention, and look forward to being before his Committee later this month. We obviously anticipated that there would be high demand for the scheme this year, which is why we had two windows and increased funding for the overall pot to £310 million—I have already mentioned the window 2 process. DEFRA expected strong initial demand, and made it clear before the window opened that its duration would depend on the rate of applications. Ministers obviously allocated the £50 million, and then the additional £20 million. We are really keen to learn from all in the sector what we can do to improve the scheme going forward, and I look forward to the right hon. Gentleman’s contributions in due course.
Josh Newbury (Cannock Chase) (Lab)
Avid readers of The Sun may have already seen some of my comments on the situation with SFI. I could ask many questions, but I will limit myself to just one. Many would-be applicants once again experienced technical issues, and those who phoned the Rural Payments Agency reported hours’ long wait times—I hope the Minister’s team are looking into that. The Department has said that there will be a further, very limited window for those who had technical issues, but could the Minister tell the House whether that includes only those who were able to speak to someone and report such issues, or whether it will also include those who, frankly, gave up when they knew that they would have to wait hours to speak to an RPA agent?
Stephen Morgan
I thank my hon. Friend for the way he has engaged with me on thinking through the design for the scheme next year. He is right to say that some farmers reported technical issues with the application service, which prevented them from applying. It is normal to receive such reports after the application windows close. Some of the applications will be valid, and the RPA is currently working through them as we speak. If my hon. Friend has any particular examples that he wants to share with me, I can certainly take them away and raise questions with the relevant officials in my Department.
Sir Roger Gale (Herne Bay and Sandwich) (Con)
Kent was once rightly regarded as the garden of England, but faced with intolerable pressures on their finances, many of the small farmers in Kent—having looked to the sustainability scheme for help and having been denied it—are now having to sell their land for housing and other development, further denying us national sustainability in food. Can the Minister tell the House how many farmers in Kent are benefiting from the scheme?
Stephen Morgan
We are publishing the figures for applications across counties and constituencies, so I can certainly make that information available to the right hon. Member. More broadly, he makes a point about the demands that farmers are facing, and our farming road map, published earlier this year, is a 25-year plan to commit to a more profitable, productive sector and to building resilience in the farming community. I am very keen to work in partnership with the farmers in his constituency and area to make sure that is delivered.
Perran Moon (Camborne and Redruth) (Lab)
When the shadow Minister next gets up at the Dispatch Box, I hope he will withdraw the inaccuracy that the scheme was, for the first time ever, built on a first-come, first-served basis. That is simply not the case, and the Conservatives know it. Does the Minister agree that farmers deserve better than the rewriting of history from the party that left a half-built, half-baked transition, and can he expand a little more on his plans to reform the RPA in time for SFI27?
Stephen Morgan
My hon. Friend is a real champion for farmers in his constituency, as is very evident from the contributions that he makes in this House, which are so informed. He is absolutely right to call out the Opposition for the action or inaction that they took when they had the opportunity to work to improve the lives of farmers across our country. I am very happy to meet him on the specific points he raises to make sure I have his insight as we design the scheme for next year.
John Glen (Salisbury) (Con)
Most farmers invest in a plan over several years, and over 12,000 who were in receipt of previous grants have been unable to fulfil what they expected this year. What thoughts does the Minister have on those individuals, given that the significant sums of money already invested, through the taxpayer, will essentially go to waste? On the RPA, what will he publish about the barriers? Most farmers get very frustrated that they cannot work out what they have done wrong.
Stephen Morgan
I thank the right hon. Member for the way he is engaging on these issues. Obviously, our annual report sets out how we spend the farming budget, and if he has not yet had a chance to see that, I encourage him to do so. I will certainly take back to the Department the specific points about the RPA and the frustrations of farmers in his constituency, and we will look into the issues he has raised.
Ms Julie Minns (Carlisle) (Lab)
The Government were absolutely right to redesign the SFI to prioritise smaller farming businesses so that taxpayer money supports more farms. However, in Cumbria, 54% of the land is less favourable, which means that my farmers have to hold more land to get a viable farm, pushing them into window 2. Will the Minister, when he looks at the next SFI, please ensure that it recognises that acreage alone should not determine which window farmers apply in?
Stephen Morgan
It was a real pleasure to meet my hon. Friend recently to discuss some of the particular challenges her constituency is facing, and wider issues including bluetongue. I will certainly bear in mind the constructive points that she has raised as we design the scheme for next year.
Calum Miller (Bicester and Woodstock) (LD)
My constituent Anthony Henman farms Pegtop farm at Woodeaton. He has SFI agreements that expire in March next year. When I spoke to him this morning, he told me that these are
“vital to us. We can’t survive without them.”
Does the Minister understand the huge pressure facing our farmers, not least in the light of the extraordinary global price of fertilisers, and that many of them are simply on the edge? What assurances can I give Anthony and other farmers in my constituency that SFI27 will be announced early, and will be adequately funded and properly managed?
Stephen Morgan
I absolutely recognise the difficult year that farmers have faced across the country, and indeed in the hon. Member’s own constituency. That is why I am keen to open SFI27 as early as possible, and I gave that assurance from the Dispatch Box earlier. It is worth noting that this year, through all the schemes, £2.3 billion is going into the farming budget, as is £11.8 billion over the lifetime of this Parliament, but I am certainly keen to hear any further thoughts as we design the scheme for next year.
Chris Hinchliff (North East Hertfordshire) (Lab)
The fundamental problem is that for years our country has not allocated enough of our national resources to growing food in a way that boosts biodiversity. We now have a nature crisis that is increasingly a threat to our national security. We need every farm that can to do more on nature-friendly farming. Can the Minister reassure me that his Department is talking to the Treasury about securing greater investment in the SFI going forward?
Stephen Morgan
My hon. Friend will know that we were responding to our settlement from the Treasury. There is always more we can do. That is why we published our farming road map earlier this year, which sets out the direction of travel that we want to take when it comes to building a more resilient, productive farming sector, working in partnership with the sector to deliver nature-friendly farming.
Rebecca Smith (South West Devon) (Con)
On 21 September, my constituent spent the day with the Minister. It was unsurprising then that on 22 September he went to market. However, he got home at 3.50 pm to complete his agreement, which had already been worked on, to find that he was two minutes too late and £50,000 down as a result. He said:
“I am jumping mad! This is a”—
insert expletive here—
“show! How can anyone be expected to manage a small business and compete in a fastest-to-the-button lottery like this?”
How would the Minister have felt if he had had to apply for his parliamentary seat in that way?
Stephen Morgan
I thank the hon. Member for her question and for encouraging me to visit Dartmoor recently. I know she was not able to join me, but it was a very insightful visit. I absolutely recognise the human difficulties for farmers who have not been able to apply for the scheme this year. If she has particular examples—as she has just described—that she wants to feed into me, it is really important that I hear them, so I thank her again. There is wider support available for farmers that we can signpost people to via the blog post on the DEFRA website.
Joe Morris (Hexham) (Lab)
As my hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle (Ms Minns) said, upland farms by their very nature have to be larger. I met upland farmers in Northumberland recently and I heard their frustration that window 1 of the SFI excluded them simply because their farms were too big geographically to be included in it. Will the Minister commit to work with me, other Northumberland MPs, my hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle and the NFU uplands group to ensure that a redesigned scheme properly supports upland farms?
Stephen Morgan
I thank my hon. Friend for the way in which he has been engaging with me already so that we can learn lessons from SFI26, and for convening colleagues in the process. Uplands are an area of priority for me. I am very impressed by the work Dr Hilary Cottam has been doing in Dartmoor. We are looking to deliver that scheme elsewhere in the country. It is absolutely something that I want to take forward with him and I look forward to doing so.
Charlie Dewhirst
The simple fact of the matter is that this scheme’s portal opened at 10 am and closed at 3.48 pm, at a time when most farmers are at work, and for agents representing farmers, that was simply enough time to fill in multiple applications. I have a very simple question to the Minister: will he apologise?
Stephen Morgan
The scheme was what it was; we inherited a mess from the previous Administration. I am keen to learn lessons from what worked. As I recognised earlier, I appreciate the heartache it has caused many farmers. There is more action we need to take.
Adam Dance (Yeovil) (LD)
Because SFI window 2 funding closed within hours, many Yeovil farmers were shut out, despite being prepared. That included Tim, who was awarded Water Quality Farmer of the Year on literally the same day. Does the Minister recognise that even farmers awarded for environmentally-friendly land management are now being left in a financial hole? What are the Government going to do to encourage sustainable farming in Yeovil?
Stephen Morgan
The hon. Member will have heard what I said at the outset with regard to our farming road map, which sets out the long-term vision for delivering a more nature-friendly farming sector. This year alone, as I mentioned, we have announced £2.3 billion going into the farming budget, with £11.8 billion going in over the lifetime of this Parliament. There are other schemes available for farmers; I encourage him to look at the DEFRA blog, which sets out those details further.
Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)
As if the farmers in my constituency did not have their heads in their hands enough over this Government’s attitude to farming, this latest debacle—turning something so important to our farmers’ livelihoods into some sort of perverse six-hour first-finger-on-the-buzzer game show—has them even more in despair. I am afraid that the Minister’s “nothing to see here” answers will cause even more distress. Perhaps he can address some of the detail. The shadow Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley and Ilkley (Robbie Moore), asked him a very, very specific question about the £210 million difference between the value of expiring agreements, valued at over £520 million, and the £310 million SFI budget. Where is that difference? Where is it going to be spent and when?
Stephen Morgan
I will take no lectures from the Conservatives; they had a scheme that was half-baked and did not deliver anything nor put money in the pockets of farmers.
Robert Jenrick (Newark) (Reform)
When I went to my agricultural shows in Nottinghamshire in August, all the farmers told me that this was going to be a complete shambles—and it was a complete shambles. This is not a surprise; everyone knew it was going to be a disaster. In his answer to a previous question, we heard that the Minister knew that the scheme was going to be massively oversubscribed, and yet he proceeded. He said the scheme was half-cocked, but he has now put his name to it. Is he going to apologise for the complete fiasco that he has put my farmers through, and what is he going to do next year to ensure this insult is never applied again?
Stephen Morgan
That is a little rich coming from the right hon. Member, who served in the previous Conservative Government, which designed the scheme. If he wants to be constructive and engage with my Department on any particular examples of how we can improve the scheme going forward, I would like to hear from him.
Dr Luke Evans (Hinckley and Bosworth) (Con)
The Minister is a good man; I worked with him to secure funding on schools when he was the Minister for Early Education. Will he simply say sorry to those small farmers who were out working in Hinckley and Bosworth, and up and down the country, who do not have a land agent to get the application in within six hours? Will he show some contrition and simply say that on his watch the scheme did not work but that he will learn the lessons, and will he simply say sorry?
Stephen Morgan
I said at the outset that it has been a brutal year for farmers across our country, with drought, rising input costs and various other factors. I hear those messages loud and clear from the regular engagement that I have with the farming community. We need to learn lessons, but I remind the hon. Gentleman that we inherited most of the scheme from the previous Government.
Caroline Voaden (South Devon) (LD)
The Minister recently visited Dartmoor. Richard, a farmer on Dartmoor, was just one of the many farmers who wrote to me following the SFI scheme to say that his farm, which protects and enhances the beauty and environment of Dartmoor, has been in a scheme for 30 years but lost out on this application. He and his wife are now seriously wondering how they are going to make ends meet. I have heard from numerous other farmers who have lost out and whose schemes will now end. They do not know how they are going to survive. It would be good if the Minister could show a little more contrition and humility, and just say, “Yeah, it didn’t work. We’re really sorry and we’re going to do better next year.” Can the Minister guarantee that the scheme will be better designed next year? Will it operate better, support the smaller farmers who rely on it for their future, and be adequately funded?
Stephen Morgan
I said at the outset that there are lessons that need to be learnt from the scheme this year, so I hope that the hon. Member has heard that message loud and clear. If the hon. Member has particular examples and frustrations from farmers in her constituency, then I encourage her to get in touch with me. It is really important that we learn lessons from this scheme as we continue to make improvements for next year.
Jerome Mayhew (Broadland and Fakenham) (Con)
I refer Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests. Does the Minister have any idea how long it takes to design and then apply for an SFI? All that is then chucked away in a six-hour lottery. The Minister’s response today—he has got his back to me; he is not even listening to my question—has been symbolic of the shrugged-shoulders attitude that the lanyard classes have had to farmers for far too long. He has had two and a half years to fix the problem—if, as he says, he inherited it. Does he even understand the boiling sense of frustration and anger that farmers have?
Stephen Morgan
I am engaging all the time with farmers across the country and their representatives. They are at the heart of our redesign of the scheme for next year. Workshops are starting today, and I have already met with representatives from the NFU and been on farms listening to farmers’ views—both from those who applied and those who were unable to do so. I absolutely understand the frustrations that people feel, but I am committed to improving the process for the future.
Dr Ellie Chowns (North Herefordshire) (Green)
The Minister knows, because I wrote to him the day after this latest SFI shambles, that farmers in North Herefordshire are livid about the problem. Farmers in Ocle Pychard, Pudleston, Linley Green, Kimbolton, Dilwyn and more have all written to tell me that they are not only hopping mad; they are distressed and depressed at the devastating impact that this situation is having on their livelihoods and the prospect of them continuing to run their farms.
Will the Minister recognise that farmers need to hear “sorry”? They need support, sustainability and certainty, not a lottery of fingers on buzzers. Fundamentally, they need direct answers to the following questions. Why is there less money available under the scheme than there was previously? Why did the Government not learn the lessons from the failure last year? And what are they going to do to genuinely own the problem?
Stephen Morgan
I do not accept that we have not learned lessons from the past. That is why we made a number of changes for SFI26, as I set out at the outset of my statement. Of course I am sorry if people applied for this scheme and were unsuccessful, and I understand people’s frustrations, and that is why I am working hard to put it right.
Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)
Many farms in Wiltshire are marginal at best, and now that they are having to divert investment into a pot to pay future inheritance taxes, they are being pushed over the edge, to be honest. What does the Minister think this latest will do for those businesses, and what assessment has he made, regardless of the attribution of blame, of how many farms will actually be sold up—families packing up and going away—as a result of this latest round of DEFRA incompetence?
Stephen Morgan
I thank the right hon. Member for his question. As I said at the outset, it is worth noting that £2.3 billion has been made available for the farming budget this year, with £11.8 billion for sustainable farming throughout the lifetime of this Parliament. If he has particular examples of farmers who have been unable to apply for SFI26, I encourage him to share those with me. For the first time since the second world war, a Government have published a farming road map to bring certainty to the sector, and I am busy getting on delivering that, working in partnership with the sector to ensure a profitable, productive and more resilient farming sector for the future.
Mike Martin (Tunbridge Wells) (LD)
Food security is national security. Without playing the blame game, the ineptness of the scheme is causing British farms to close and, in extreme circumstances, farmers to commit suicide. I wonder whether the Minister agrees with the principle that food security is national security, and could he explain to the House how he takes that principle forwards in his work when administering schemes such as this?
Stephen Morgan
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question. I absolutely appreciate the difficulties that farmers have faced and the challenges that many have faced in applying for the scheme this year. As our manifesto says, food security is national security, and we are working through what that looks like in the Department. We have set out a clear vision through the road map for the future to bring certainty and consistency to the sector.
Wendy Morton (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con)
At a time when the Government really should be supporting the producers of our food and the guardians of our countryside, they saw fit to open the new SFI scheme offer and then close it down after just six hours. Will the Minister acknowledge that his Government got this wrong, provide a road map—a forward look for the farmers—detailing what the next scheme will be, give them more notice and assure both farmers and this House that they will have more time next time round?
Stephen Morgan
I thank the right hon. Lady for her question. As I mentioned at the outset, it was her Government who introduced the “first come, first served” approach. We are absolutely keen to ensure that we make changes and improvements for future years, and if she has practical ideas about how we make that happen, I would be delighted to hear from her.
Tessa Munt (Wells and Mendip Hills) (LD)
I wanted to point out to the Minister that a lot of farmers in my area have terrible difficulties with buffering broadband, as internet access is poor. I had actually thought that those who had agents were the lucky ones, but I was informed quite neatly after I had said something about this that most agents actually only managed to get in eight, nine or 10 applications in the very short window that was available, so that was not the case. The Minister has mentioned that he is going to be running workshops with farmers, but has he actually asked the Rural Payments Agency to do a high-speed review, as he does not have very much time before 2027, so that the barriers to applicants, particularly those who had expiring agreements and those who do use agents—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Order. Marvellous, fantastic question. I call the Minister.
Stephen Morgan
I thank the hon. Member for her question, and I can assure her that I have met the RPA on the lessons learned from the scheme and what worked well this year, and we will analyse what the applications tell us.
Sir Ashley Fox (Bridgwater) (Con)
Farmers across Somerset have been left without certainty and support by this latest DEFRA snafu, and they will not be consoled by the thought of a workshop. How does the Minister envisage farmers being able to plan financially for the year ahead if they do not know when the next round is or how the funds will be allocated?
Stephen Morgan
We will publish more information about future rounds in due course. The hon. Gentleman will have heard my message that we are keen to open SFI27 as early as possible into the new year. There are lots of ways that farmers can feed in their thoughts and views on the scheme for the future, and there are other funding schemes available for farmers, so I encourage him to check the DEFRA blog for that information.
Gideon Amos (Taunton and Wellington) (LD)
A dozen farmers I was with out on the levels last week from North Curry, Stoke St Gregory and the surrounding areas were visibly shaken by the economic impacts that they are facing and the price of diesel. This latest debacle has been disastrous for farmers. They are considering ripping out the trees and margins that were planted under previous funding initiatives because they simply will not be able to continue without funding being provided under this initiative, which seems to have only gone to around 10% to 12% of farms in the country. Can the Minister tell me what he would have me say to those farmers about the loss of the wildlife that they have already put in?
Stephen Morgan
I am very happy to meet the hon. Gentleman to discuss those issues.
Alicia Kearns (Rutland and Stamford) (Con)
The NFU and farmers were a klaxon on the impending car crash that unravelled—those are the words of a local farmer. A debacle—those are the words of a Labour MP. Having had no decency to warn farmers that it was coming, today was an opportunity for humility rather than gaslighting them that only some of the technical complaints were legitimate. Will the Minister at least now publish a transparent breakdown of how the farming budget is being spent in its entirety? That is the least that farmers deserve after this debacle.
Stephen Morgan
Our annual report obviously sets out how the farming budget is spent. When we announce future rounds of schemes, we set out the overall budget available. I mentioned earlier the amount available for SFI this year. We will continue to be as transparent as we can beyond the figures available for farmers.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
With the final question, I call Jim Shannon.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. While the sustainable farming incentive applies specifically to England, the allocation underpinning it directly impacts devolved regions. Given that the Ulster Farmers Union—I declare an interest as a member —has expressed severe concern over the long-term stability of the multi-year agricultural budget and the transition away from direct support, what discussions has the Minister had with the Department of Agriculture, Environment and Rural Affairs Minister and the Northern Ireland Assembly to ensure that the unique family farm structure in Northern Ireland is strengthened and protected within the Barnett consequentials and the UK-wide funding envelope in order to help towards soaring costs?
Stephen Morgan
I always appreciate a question from the hon. Gentleman. We will certainly look into the issues that he describes. Farming is a devolved matter, but he knows my commitment to working in partnership with the Northern Ireland Government. I have already met with my counterparts in Northern Ireland.
Perran Moon (Camborne and Redruth) (Lab)
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Earlier the shadow Minister may have inadvertently misled the House by stating that for the first time this scheme was changed to operate on a first come, first served basis. That is simply not the case. A first come, first served scheme was set up under the Conservatives. Madam Deputy Speaker, can you advise how the record may be corrected?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I thank the hon. Member for his point of order. Members themselves, not the Chair, are responsible for what they say in the Chamber. If the shadow Minister wishes to clarify his earlier remarks, that is for him, but he needs to keep it short, because I do not want to continue the debate.
Robbie Moore (Keighley and Ilkley) (Con)
Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. As a matter of fact, when the SFI window was closed under this Labour Government in March 2025, that process in itself led to the huge demand that came up in September this time, therefore making it competitive and first come, first served. That is exactly the scenario that happened. [Interruption.]
Madam Deputy Speaker
Order. We are not going to continue the debate. The urgent question is over.
Business of the House
(1 day, 9 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
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 19 October will include:
Monday 19 October—Committee of the whole House of the Northern Ireland Troubles Bill, day one.
Tuesday 20 October—Conclusion of Committee and remaining stages of the Northern Ireland Troubles Bill.
Wednesday 21 October—Consideration of an allocation of time motion, followed by all stages of the Church Appointments (Repeal of Discriminatory Provision) Bill, followed by Opposition day, 4th allotted day, first half, followed by a debate on a motion in the name of the Liberal Democrats, subject to be announced.
Thursday 22 October—Tributes to the Clerk of the House, followed by general debate on Black History Month.
Friday 23 October—The House will not be sitting.
The provisional business for the week commencing 26 October will include:
Monday 26 October—General debate on the performance of Royal Mail, followed by general debate on the emerging risks of advanced AI. The subjects for these debates were determined by the Backbench Business Committee.
Tuesday 27 October—Second Reading of the Building Safety (Remediation of Unsafe Cladding etc) Bill.
Wednesday 28 October—My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer will deliver his Budget statement.
Thursday 29 October—Continuation of the Budget debate.
Friday 30 October—The House will not be sitting.
Jesse Norman
I thank the Leader of the House for the business. I associate myself with everything that was said in the previous urgent question about the fiasco of the sustainable farming incentive.
We meet today on the fifth anniversary of the death—the murder—of Sir David Amess. I know that all colleagues will want to join me in celebrating David, his perennial optimism, his beaming smile, his enormous gift for friendship, and his unfailing energy in assisting and supporting his constituents. The independent report into his murder led by Sir Robert Buckland cannot come too soon.
I have three matters to raise. The first relates indirectly to David Amess. As the Leader of the House will know, at Prime Minister’s questions yesterday, the Prime Minister described the man charged with the murder of our former colleague Ann Widdecombe as the man “responsible” for her murder. That statement breached the legal presumption of innocence, discussed a case that is sub judice and misled the House. It must have been inadvertent, but there has been no clarification yet—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Order. We do not accuse each other of misleading the House. “Inadvertently” is the word.
Jesse Norman
As I think I said, whatever took place was inadvertent, but there has been no clarification from the Prime Minister or any Minister, no withdrawal of the remark and no apology. That is deeply disrespectful of this House and of the Chair. Will the Leader of the House correct the record, withdraw the remark and apologise on behalf of the Prime Minister?
Secondly, as the House will know, Manchester City have been found guilty by an independent commission of 114 of the 115 charges brought against them by the Premier League, including inaccurate financial reporting, undisclosed remuneration and failure to co-operate with the investigations. This week, having previously been neutral on the issue, the Prime Minister sought to distance himself personally from the club and its owners. Otherwise, he and Ministers have remained remarkably quiet, especially since his club, Everton, had an eight-point deduction for two breaches—112 fewer than have been found here—just three years ago. Will the Leader of the House set out the Government’s position? Do they regard the breaches as extremely serious, or do they believe that a few eggs may have been broken, but broadly speaking everything is all right? When will we get a statement from the Sport Minister on the subject?
Finally, last November, I highlighted the severe flooding suffered by Ewyas Harold in my constituency. Homes were inundated, people and businesses were evacuated, and families were left with huge financial and emotional costs. Insurance premiums have gone up—if insurance remains available at all. The school, the doctors’ surgery and access for emergency services were cut off. Other nearby villages, including Clodock, Kentchurch and Allt-yr-ynys were similarly afflicted. Yet now, 11 months later, despite an all-parties meeting that I convened last March and repeated representations to Ministers, the Environment Agency and Herefordshire council, there has been no substantive progress.
The Government Office for Science believes El Niño is likely to be bigger than ever this year. My constituents are deeply anxious that floods this winter will drive them yet again from their homes and businesses. Fixing that does not require some vast engineering project. Better drainage, watercourse maintenance, management of run-off and other practical mitigations could all make the difference. However, the residents are in a Catch-22 situation that will be familiar to many people across this House: no one in authority is taking any responsibility, but people are not allowed by law to help themselves. The works could all be done legally, quickly and effectively this year by local companies at less than half the cost of the EA’s framework contractors, but that is prohibited. No one will come to the aid of these people, but put one foot into the watercourse just to clear the debris, and they risk prosecution.
I have made a formal Budget submission to the Chancellor on that matter. Will the Leader of the House now take it up personally with the Chancellor and the Environment Secretary and make funding this scheme the first order of business for the Government’s new floods resilience taskforce?
Sir Alan Campbell
May I associate myself absolutely with the comments of the shadow Leader of the House about Sir David Amess? As he said, today is the fifth anniversary of his tragic murder, and I know that the thoughts of the whole House remain with his loved ones. He was well regarded on both sides of the House. He was a mentor to lots of new Members and a fantastic constituency MP. What happened was an absolute tragedy.
I welcome Members back to the House after the conference recess, and congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Sagal Abdi-Wali), who joined us on Monday. It is also good to see the shadow Leader of the House in his place. We missed him earlier in the week, and I was concerned that he was still in the half-empty conference hall in Birmingham, wondering whether the shadow Chancellor, the hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs (Andrew Griffith), had actually finished his speech.
It was a busy conference season. At the Labour conference, the Prime Minister made several important announcements, including plans for a national care service, which will provide the elderly with free personal care. The Government have also announced that the triple lock will remain until the end of this Parliament, following which it will be adjusted, not least to pay for the new national care service.
I do not blame the official Opposition for doing this, because it is part of their job, but they did jump in very quickly to oppose any change to the triple lock. I find that quite surprising, because in August 2021, the shadow Chancellor wrote a comment piece entitled “Unpick the triple lock”, and I understand that the view that it should be unpicked is shared by the current shadow Communities Secretary—the hon. Member for Weald of Kent (Katie Lam)—and at least one former Chancellor. It appears to me that the Conservative party is tying itself in knots on the matter. It would be very helpful if the Leader of the Opposition, or someone from her shadow Cabinet, came to the House to clear up the confusion.
Let me turn to the Budget. I did announce, in the forthcoming business, the date of the Budget and the beginning of the debate that will follow. I hope that in that debate the House will be able to reflect on Britain’s economic outlook. To that end, I draw to the House’s attention this week’s positive report from the International Monetary Fund, which upgraded our growth to 1.3% this year, joint second highest in the G7, and the comments of the IMF’s chief economist, who said that the UK “stands out”—his words, not mine—on deficit reduction, with our deficit falling significantly more than other G7 nations’. In other good news this morning, GDP has grown more than expected. We are not complacent, but the Chancellor is absolutely focused on priorities to boost business, help with the cost of living and support people in every postcode, all underpinned by the fiscal discipline that characterises this Government.
Flood Action Week—this ties in with what the right hon. Gentleman said about the situation in his constituency —started on Monday. The Government have invested £4.2 billion in flood protection measures, and we have new targets to improve flood protection for 200,000 properties. On Monday, we also launched the flood action online portal, which brings together clear, actionable guidance for people to check their flood risk and find the latest weather alerts.
On flooding, I thank Members on both sides of the House who have raised the issue regularly at business questions. To address the particular issue that the right hon. Gentleman rightly raised on behalf of his constituents, however, let me say two things further. First, if he wants to make his case to the Floods Minister, I will arrange for him to do so. Secondly, on making representations to the Chancellor, I will ensure that the Chancellor hears what he has said, although I will not say—because I do not know—what is in the Budget.
On the other points the right hon. Member made, I am not sure that he is being characteristically fair, as he normally is, because the Prime Minister has acknowledged that he misspoke. The right hon. Gentleman was out quite quickly, and rightly, to make his case yesterday, and the Prime Minister did respond. He said that he misspoke, he has apologised and he has corrected the record. There is no excuse for misspeaking in the House and I am not trying to explain that away, but this Prime Minister is characterised by an authenticity and a passion in the way that he responds. It is not unusual for Prime Ministers or anybody else to misspeak in the House. As long as they correct the record, which he has done, that should be put into perspective.
The right hon. Gentleman also raises the issue of Manchester City, and the Prime Minister again has been characteristically clear. He has made it clear that the initial judgment on the club is very serious and that no one is suggesting that anybody is above the rules. There is an ongoing independent process. It is important that it is allowed to run its course as quickly and as fairly as possible. At the end of that, if the Sport Minister needs to come to make a statement to this House, I am quite sure that she will do so.
David Burton-Sampson (Southend West and Leigh) (Lab)
As the shadow Leader of the House and the Leader of the House have pointed out, today is the fifth anniversary of the tragic murder of Sir David Amess in my constituency. My thoughts are with his family, his Conservative colleagues here and in Southend and all colleagues and constituents who knew Sir David. As his plaque behind me says, may his light remain.
The Children’s Parliament was founded by Sir David Amess, and it was a project that was close to his heart. I am delighted that, on this anniversary, we will be joined by the child MPs in Parliament, and I am sure that it will be a lively debate. Will the Leader of the House join me in celebrating the enthusiasm of these children, who are showing a keen interest in democracy at a young age?
Sir Alan Campbell
I certainly join my hon. Friend in everything he said about Sir David Amess and in recognising the importance that he gave to involving young people in our parliamentary process. To that end, I welcome the child MPs to the House today. I wish them well in everything they do, and it is important that we support not just their learning about the political process but exploring how they can contribute more to it.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
Bobby Dean (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)
I join the Leader of the House in this tribute to Sir David Amess. It is clear how well loved he was across the House, and our thoughts are with his family.
The Leader of the House mentioned the party conference season. The Liberal Democrats warmly welcome the Prime Minister moving towards our positions on Europe, social care and electoral reform at conference. We urge him to go further and faster on all three fronts. [Interruption.] Not appreciated by those on the Conservative Benches, but we certainly appreciate progress on Europe, social care and electoral reform.
There is an emerging scandal that relates to the treatment of Hongkongers entitled to British national overseas status. The UK has a historic commitment to those people, with the promise of democracy being maintained in Hong Kong or a pathway to UK citizenship, which many of them have taken up. However, we have received reports that many BNO applications are now being refused on the basis of past convictions in Hong Kong. UK rules state that if the conviction is an offence in the UK and the sentence is for longer than 12 months, that should result in an automatic refusal. Some Hongkongers were convicted for longer than 12 months for the offence of rioting, which is an offence in the UK but, of course, they were not really rioting; they were engaging in peaceful democratic protest.
We have raised these concerns directly with the Home Office, which says that discretion can be applied, but the guidance we have seen says otherwise. The fact is that people are now being rejected on this basis. To add insult to injury, the rejection letters say that these decisions have been made by a competent foreign court. I hope the Leader of House will agree that this would be a betrayal of the UK’s historic commitment to those people, so can he organise for Ministers to issue clear guidance about the specific discretion that is required in these cases?
Sir Alan Campbell
I am sure the House will not have missed the hon. Gentleman’s opening comments when he talked about his party’s “positions” on Europe—it is not unusual for the Lib Dems to have many positions on many things. I am sure he enjoyed his conference, not least because he probably got more sleep than he might have done with a young child at home, but there we are. The difference between our conference and his is that the leader of our party came out strengthened from our conference; I am not sure the Lib Dems can say the same.
On the serious matter that the hon. Gentleman raises, we have granted over 230,000 visas under the British national overseas visa route, and we are honouring our commitment to support Hongkongers facing political pressure. We remain committed to supporting Hong Kong residents and welcoming eligible applications under the scheme. Every application involving a prior conviction is assessed individually on its merits. We are ensuring that actions that are not considered criminal offences under UK law do not bar applicants from safety, but I give him my word that I will go back to the Home Office, and if that needs to be clarified, I will draw that to its attention
Torcuil Crichton (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (Lab)
The Western Isles have been struck this week by maritime tragedy with the sinking of the fishing vessel Kilda in a Tuesday night storm off the coast of Lewis, with what we fear is the subsequent loss of the three souls aboard. I pay tribute and express thanks to the coastguard officers, the Royal National Lifeboat Institution crews, helicopter crews and police officers who are still involved in the search for two of the missing men.
Events like this cut deeply into our communities and leave salted wounds of grief; I think of Ness, Barvas and Carloway, and the homes and villages there that this crew left from. That pain of grief will be echoed in other coastal communities across the country. All those who fish will mourn, and they that spread their nets on the ocean will languish. For that reason, can the Leader of the House join me in expressing deep condolences to the families and communities affected and to all the other families and fishers who touch that razor’s edge of the deep every day and, for our good, go down to the sea in ships?
Sir Alan Campbell
I am sure the whole House will join me and the hon. Gentleman in extending our most heartfelt condolences to the friends and families of those who have lost their lives. I join him in paying tribute to the brave members of the RNLI and the coastguard involved in the search and rescue. I am a coastal MP, and it is coming up to the 60th anniversary of the loss of the Gaul, the biggest single trawler loss in the industry’s history; six of those men were from my constituency, and we marked that event over the summer. I know absolutely the importance of that loss and how it is felt in fishing communities, and I know how important the work of the RNLI and coastguard is and how deeply appreciated they are.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I call the Chair of the Backbench Business Committee.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
I join others in paying tribute to the late Sir David Amess. He was always here for business questions, with a topical question and a smile on his face.
I thank the Leader of the House for announcing the business on 26 October in the Chamber. Given the experience on Monday, I thank him for giving protected time for the baby loss awareness debate. Considering how many times the issue was raised at Business, Innovation, Science and Trade questions this morning, the debate on the performance of Royal Mail is likely to be extremely well attended. Will the Leader of the House consider giving protected time for those two debates, particularly if there will be Government statements or urgent questions?
The business in Westminster Hall for next week is as follows. On 20 October, there will be a debate on manufacturing skills. On Thursday 22 October, there will be a statement from the Science and Technology Committee, followed by a debate on compensation for Equitable Life policyholders, followed by a debate on the legacy of the Jarrow crusade on its 90th anniversary. On 27 October there will be a debate on recognising the production and serving of cask ale as an intangible cultural heritage. Personally, I prefer drinking it to talking about it. On Thursday 29 October there will be a debate on the mandatory safeguarding 24/7 of helipads at major trauma centres, followed by a debate on the role and effectiveness of Ofcom.
I have a couple of housekeeping notes. We are short of a Labour Member on the Backbench Business Committee; I hope that space will be filled quickly. This week we had a problem, because we had the bare quorum needed to do our business. We had an application for a debate on Black History Month, but I note that is now a Government debate. The risk is that the Front Benchers will get two bites at the cherry, which reduces the time for Back Benchers to contribute. This would have been a Backbench Business Committee debate, led by Back Benchers, but I completely understand the Leader of the House wishing to offer a general debate on the subject.
We are halfway through Navaratri, a celebration for Hindus across the world. It is a joyous occasion. Last Saturday, I attended the World Sindhi Congress, and this week I received a delegation of ex-Bangladeshi politicians and Sanatans. They raised the same issue: the plight of Hindus in Pakistan and Bangladesh is desperate right now. I receive messages literally every day about atrocities committed against the Hindu population of Bangladesh and Pakistan. I know that the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office is concentrating on the illegal war between Russia and Ukraine, and the crisis in the middle east, but could we have a statement on what the Government will do to help protect those minorities in Pakistan and Bangladesh?
Sir Alan Campbell
As ever, I thank the hon. Gentleman for his work chairing the Committee, and indeed I thank the whole Committee for its work. On the baby loss debate, not only was the allocated time protected, but there was an element of discipline, which I welcome. I do not think the approach is perfect, but we are getting there. I will bear in mind what he says about Monday 26 October. My initial reaction is that it is not always necessary or welcome to have guaranteed time for debates, and perhaps we should take this on a case-by-case basis, but I will give some thought to what he says. I take away the point about ensuring that the Committee has full membership, and I will seek to ensure that the issue is resolved as quickly as possible. I will also ask the Front-Bench spokespersons for Black History Month to bear in mind what he said, and to ensure that in the debate on the subject, Back Benchers—it would probably otherwise have been a Backbench Business debate—get the time that they need.
I will get to the hon. Gentleman’s serious point about the protection of minorities, but it would be remiss of me not to send our most heartfelt condolences to the friends and family of those impacted by the tragic school collapse in Pakistan; news of it came out overnight. I hope the whole House will join me in sending our heartfelt best wishes to those communities. On the treatment of Hindus and others, the UK strongly condemns all instances of hate or violence directed towards minority religious communities in Pakistan, including Shi’a Muslims, Ahmadis, Christians, Hindus and Sikhs. We work with the international community to promote human rights, in partnership with Pakistan, but I will draw the hon. Gentleman’s comments to the attention of the FCDO. I hear what he says about there being lots of other things going on, not least what is happening in Ukraine and the middle east, but that is no excuse for our taking our eye off the ball in situations where we can do something to help.
Tulip Siddiq (Hampstead and Highgate) (Lab)
Vincent Chan abused baby girls at a Bright Horizons nursery in my constituency for seven years. The Guardian has now revealed that three years before he was arrested, a complaint was made about him. It was investigated by Bright Horizons, overseen by Camden council, who cleared him and allowed him to return to work, where he continued to abuse little children until he was arrested. I have asked Camden council and Bright Horizons for the full documentation relating to the investigation that took place in 2021. Can we have a debate in Government time about strengthening the safeguarding practices in nurseries, particularly in the Bright Horizons chain? Ofsted has taken the unprecedented step of issuing two welfare requirement notices to the nurseries in that chain.
Sir Alan Campbell
I thank my hon. Friend for raising this matter again. She is doing an excellent job of keeping it at the forefront of our mind. The safeguarding of young children is our utmost priority. Over the summer, we have announced a range of measures to improve early years safeguarding. The Department for Education has established an expert advisory group on safeguarding, which is looking at the use of CCTV and digital devices in early years settings; it will report before Christmas. If she is seeking a meeting with the Department to get an update on these matters, I will help her to arrange one.
Martin Vickers (Brigg and Immingham) (Con)
Like many Members from across the House who attended their party conference, I visited the Guide Dogs stand at our party conference. The organisation made the point, as it regularly does, about the dangers of pavement parking, not only to those with guide dogs, but to the disabled and other groups. The Government recently had a consultation on the subject, and have taken the view that further legislation is needed. Devolving the power to local authorities is fine, but they need to have resources available to them. Will the Leader of the House arrange for a statement from the appropriate Minister?
Sir Alan Campbell
I too met Guide Dogs at our conference. It does a fantastic job campaigning on a really important issue. As the hon. Gentleman said, the Government have taken some steps forward on this issue, but we recognise that there are more things to do. I cannot guarantee him a statement on the subject, but if he wants to hear from the mouths of Ministers about our plans, he might seek a Westminster Hall debate or Adjournment debate on the issue.
Kim Johnson (Liverpool Riverside) (Lab)
Palestinian families have been denied family reunification, and that has been found to be unlawful in the courts. Those families include those of Obaida and Mahmoud, two boys who, last year, met the former Prime Minister, who promised to do everything that he could to ensure that their families were united with them. Will the Leader of the House allow a debate in Government time on a Palestinian visa scheme, so that we can scrutinise these important issues?
Sir Alan Campbell
My hon. Friend is a strong advocate on these issues. If she seeks an Adjournment debate or a Westminster Hall debate on the subject, she could put these matters directly to Ministers. The Government are keen to do all we can on this, but an Adjournment debate or a Westminster Hall debate is the way forward for her.
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
On the Church Appointments (Repeal of Discriminatory Provision) Bill, I am not sure that many of us Jews and Catholics have really felt discriminated against since 1829 by the provisions that are being repealed, and we think that there may be more important things for the Government to do. I am not sure that many of us actually want to be involved in appointing Anglican bishops, although we might improve the number of bishops who talk about God, rather than social issues.
Turning to the much more immediate and important issue of the restoration and renewal of Parliament, the Leader of the House knows that I have been involved in this subject for many years, and am constantly urging action. We really need to get on with it. We need to repeal the legislation that stops work carrying on around us. There is a horrible rumour that we are going back to delaying the whole thing until 2032, and there is talk about a full decant. Will he give us a report on how we will get on with repairing this building?
Sir Alan Campbell
I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman will make his points about the Roman Catholic Relief Act 1829, and the discrimination against Jews under the provisions from the 1860s, which banned them from doing certain things, in the debate, if he is able to. The difference is that we have a Catholic Prime Minister, so it is key that nothing gets in the way of him taking part in any deliberations. I am sure that the House is keen to make these changes to outdated legislation.
There is a report suggesting a way forward on restoration and renewal. I have committed to bringing forward a motion on the subject, because I absolutely agree with the right hon. Gentleman: it is time that we got on with this work. There is not full agreement across the House about what that means, but it is important that we get a debate. He should not believe everything that he is told, or reads, about any postponement. The purpose is not to postpone restoration and renewal; the reality is that it has been postponed for far too long. The longer we postpone it, the more it costs not just to keep this place functioning, but to eventually get round to doing something about it.
However, I admit that my approach has not been to rush into this work, or to get the House to rush into it, because I want consensus, if we can get it. That is the best way of going forward. There is not a consensus, but we can work toward one. I want to build in as many safeguards as possible. For example, I would like to see the outcome of the inquiry by the Public Accounts Committee. Quite rightly, MPs will ask, “How do you ensure that this work will provide value for money, if you decide to do it?”. On timing, all I would say is that we need to get on with this work, so watch this space.
Marsha De Cordova (Battersea) (Lab)
The Albert bridge in Battersea has been closed for more than eight months, amid safety concerns. That is causing severe delays and disruption to my constituents and businesses alike. Bridges in Battersea and across London play a vital role in keeping London moving, so can we have a debate in Government time on how we can make our bridges a strategic asset under national Government oversight?
Sir Alan Campbell
My hon. Friend may want to make that point directly either to Ministers in the Department for Transport or, if we are talking about essential infrastructure, to the Cabinet Office. I can help arrange that for her. She could also seek a debate on the subject, because I am sure that there are colleagues across the House, not least from London, who will share her frustration about what is happening. They could then hear from a Minister on how the Government could best resolve the matter.
Mike Martin (Tunbridge Wells) (LD)
I do not know if the Leader of the House has seen “The Wargame”, a recent series on Sky, but its central message is that we are not ready. We might be more ready, had the promised defence readiness Bill come into this Session of Parliament, but it was inexplicably dropped from His Majesty’s Speech. Are there plans to bring that Bill forward at some point? Has he had, or will he have, any conversations with the Defence Secretary to hasten it along?
Sir Alan Campbell
This Session is quite crowded, and one should not read into the fact that a Bill does not appear in it that it is not important to the Government. It is sometimes a question of priority, and what needs to be done. I hear what the hon. Gentleman says, but the Government are absolutely committed to doing everything we can to ensure that we in this country stand by our allies and are able to defend ourselves. I will not speculate about what is in the third Session of this Parliament, but I will give this some thought, and will talk to the Defence Secretary, as the hon. Gentleman suggests, to ensure that this is at the forefront of his mind.
David Pinto-Duschinsky (Hendon) (Lab)
Sometimes in our lives, we are fortunate to meet someone truly inspirational. Rabbi Bernd Koschland was such a person. Bernd came to this country in the Kindertransport, aged just eight. His parents were not so lucky; he never saw them again. Many of us would have been broken by such a tragedy, but Bernd triumphed over that adversity. He dedicated his life to education, teaching generation after generation and telling his story to children around the globe. In 2018, he was awarded an MBE for his role as one of this country’s leading Holocaust educators. Bernd was a man of huge compassion, warmth, humility and humour. He loved his family and was a proud great-grandfather. It was my honour to call him a friend, and to talk to him almost every week for many years. We lost Bernd over the recess. Our community in Hendon mourns him deeply, but his legacy will live on. Will the Leader of the House join me in celebrating Bernd’s life, thanking him for his huge contribution to this country and passing on this House’s deepest condolences to his family?
Sir Alan Campbell
Yes, I will. Rabbi Bernd Koschland led a remarkable life. He dedicated himself to educating us about the horrors of the Holocaust, which we must never, ever forget, and we are eternally grateful to him for his significant contribution to our country. I am sure that the whole House will join me in sending our condolences to his friends, family and all those who knew him.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I call Sir Julian Lewis—it is nice to see you so calm today.
Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. May I invite the Leader of the House and other colleagues to do their best to watch the 15-minute video on the Maze YouTube channel entitled “The Medical Mesh Scandal Ruining Women’s Lives”, which was screened last night at a meeting chaired excellently by the hon. Member for Washington and Gateshead South (Mrs Hodgson)? That video deals, of course, with the scandal of pelvic mesh. It is rather disconcerting that two and a half years after the publication of the report by the Patient Safety Commissioner, Professor Henrietta Hughes, the Government have not yet responded to her proposals, even on interim redress. Will the Leader of the House take up this cause, which is supported by people across all parts of the House?
Sir Alan Campbell
The right hon. Gentleman is right to invite Members to watch that video to become more informed on what I know is an issue of considerable concern across the House. We recognise the profound, life-changing impact that these harms have had on individuals and their families. As he knows, we are carefully considering the Hughes report, but I understand the frustration and the timescales involved. I will ask Ministers to update the right hon. Gentleman and, indeed, anyone else who is interested in this matter.
Mrs Sharon Hodgson (Washington and Gateshead South) (Lab)
Following on from my friend across the House, the right hon. Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis), I and many other colleagues of all parties attended the screening of that brilliant documentary —if I can describe in that way something that was so devastating to watch, as so many women have been harmed by mesh. The right hon. Member has already laid out the details of the Hughes report and asked why we are still waiting for a response. I also encourage colleagues to watch the Maze documentary and to share it as widely as they can. We are at a stalemate on this issue; the Government changed hands after the Hughes report was published, but we are now over two years on. Will the Leader of the House meet me and the right hon. Member to discuss how we can move forward?
Sir Alan Campbell
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend; she has been an assiduous and tireless campaigner on this matter, and she rightly continues to raise it. As I said to the right hon. Member for New Forest East (Sir Julian Lewis), I appreciate the frustration in this regard and the time that it has taken. I do not know why it has taken so long, but rather than meet me, I think it would be more useful if she and perhaps the right hon. Gentleman met Ministers to see whether this can be sorted out.
Sir Roger Gale (Herne Bay and Sandwich) (Con)
I associate myself with the remarks that have already been made about the murder of Sir David Amess five years ago to the day. David was a dear personal friend. He came into the House on the same day as myself and the Father of the House, my right hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh), in 1983. I think I am right in saying that had David lived, as he should have done, it would have been he who was Father of the House today.
David was a passionate supporter of animal welfare. Earlier this week, my friend the hon. Member for Newport West and Islwyn (Ruth Jones) introduced a ten-minute rule Bill to create a close season for the killing of hares. I lent my name to that Bill, and I know David would have done so had he been here. That Bill is due to have its Second Reading on 19 March 2027. As a ten-minute rule Bill, ordinarily it would not go very far, but will the Leader of the House see whether he can find his way to ensuring that it has Government support?
Sir Alan Campbell
I pay tribute to the right hon. Gentleman, who has also been a passionate and consistent supporter of animal welfare, and echo his words about Sir David Amess. I will look out for the ten-minute rule Bill, and I hope the House gives it support. I will give some thought to what the Government might do to assist it, but without giving the right hon. Gentleman any false hope, I will say that we are looking at whether there is scope for addressing wildlife issues in a third Session. Even if the Government do not bring forward something on this topic, I am sure the right hon. Gentleman will find a way of attaching it to anything that has the word “wildlife” in it.
Ms Julie Minns (Carlisle) (Lab)
Cumberland and Westmorland wrestling is one of my region’s most distinctive sporting and cultural traditions. I am delighted that plans are under way for Carlisle to host the 2027 European championships of the International Federation of Celtic Wrestling. Will the Leader of the House join me in welcoming this exciting opportunity to showcase a unique UNESCO-recognised living heritage sport? Can he assist me in securing a meeting with the sports Minister to discuss how the Government might support this prestigious international event?
Sir Alan Campbell
It is fantastic news that Carlisle will host the 2027 European championships of the International Federation of Celtic Wrestling. It will do two things: people will learn more about the sport, I hope; and, in visiting, they will learn more about the fantastic city of Carlisle, which I am sure will be brought wider benefits than just the sport itself. I will ensure that my hon. Friend gets the meeting with the sports Minister she requests so that even after the championships have finished there is continuation of acknowledgement of the sport and the impact it can have.
Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)
Might we have a debate in Government time on the various growing crises facing the UK fishing industries? I learned today that recently, one Norwegian trawler, the Havstrand, landed from one trip 787 tonnes of saithe caught in the waters around Shetland. That is one 70-metre freezer trawler landing from one trip an amount roughly equivalent to half the quota available to all Shetland boats in one year. This is not a new problem—I have complained about the imbalance between UK and Norwegian boats for a long time—but surely it demonstrates that if these problems are not addressed, they will become urgent, as this one has done.
Sir Alan Campbell
I believe that the best way forward for the right hon. Gentleman is to make his case directly to Ministers. He could wait for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs questions, which I think are next week. If he wants a longer and greater opportunity to do that, I will arrange for him to meet the fisheries Minister.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
I think this is a birthday question. I call Mohammad Yasin.
Mohammad Yasin (Bedford) (Lab)
Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I welcome the Prime Minister’s pledge at conference that the days of leaseholders being squeezed for every penny are coming to an end. In advance of the Government’s planned leasehold reform legislation, will the Leader of the House make time for a debate on leaseholders’ concerns, including spiralling service and insurance charges, non-qualifying leaseholders and bills that are opaque, duplicated or contain errors, so that hon. Members can raise their constituents’ experiences and press for an end to those unfair and often unaffordable costs?
Sir Alan Campbell
Let me join the House in wishing my hon. Friend a happy birthday. On leasehold reform, we are committed to ending the feudal leasehold system and bringing forward legislation to deliver that as quickly as possible; as the Prime Minister said at conference, it is a priority for him. That is about implementing the Leasehold and Freehold Reform Act 2024 and going further. If my hon. Friend wishes to begin making a strong case before any further legislation comes forward, I suggest that an Adjournment or Westminster Hall debate would be well attended.
John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con)
As the Leader of the House will be aware, the recent works to Carriage Gates here at Westminster cost the taxpayer over £62 million, which was significantly over budget. It has now been brought to my attention that fire engines may not be able to get through the new gates. Will he undertake urgently to investigate that further? Will he assure us that arrangements will be put in place so that fire engines can get into the Palace of Westminster if there is a fire?
Sir Alan Campbell
I am very concerned to hear that, and I simply hope it is not true, but I will go away and investigate. There is a House of Commons Commission meeting on Monday, where perhaps we can raise this question to get reassurances. The hon. Gentleman underlines the importance of making sure that we get on with restoration and renewal and address some of these issues. There is a huge fire risk in this place. That is not over-egging it—there just is that risk. I hope that what he raises is not true, but I will take the matter away, think about it and find out whether it is true.
Rebecca Long Bailey (Salford) (Lab)
The Government’s announcement yesterday that it was partnering with UK hospitality firms to deliver 100,000 jobs to young people not in education, employment or training was hugely welcome, but one such partner, amid widespread claims of bullying, sexual harassment and discrimination, has been placed under monitoring by the Equality and Human Rights Commission. Will colleagues be bringing a statement to this House to assure us that appropriate safeguards will be put in place for any employee taken on?
Sir Alan Campbell
It is vital that those safeguards are put in place. If my hon. Friend wishes to discuss her concerns with Ministers, I will help her to arrange a meeting. I will also bear in mind what she has said, because the Government are doing important work not only in trying to support hospitality, but crucially in trying to get young people into work. If there is a need for a statement, I will make sure that one is delivered.
Dr Ellie Chowns (North Herefordshire) (Green)
Last week I was contacted by a constituent who faces a £300 a month shortfall between her rent and her local housing allowance. She is deeply concerned about the rent arrears and the risk of her and her family being forced into homelessness. That situation is affecting people across the country. On the very same day, the Joseph Rowntree Foundation published a report showing how rent controls could reduce the cost to the Exchequer of the unfreezing of local housing allowance by more than a billion pounds by 2030-31. Can we have a debate in Government time about the urgent need to unfreeze local housing allowance and to institute rent controls so that we can avoid the risk of homelessness and the devastating impact, worry and distress that it is causing to so many of our constituents?
Sir Alan Campbell
The Government are committed to doing everything we can to support people with the cost of living crisis. That includes the cost of housing, and making sure that we get rid of the problem of homelessness and do not add to it. If the hon. Lady seeks a debate on these matters, she can put those points to the relevant Minister. I have to say, though, that rent controls are not, in the Government’s view, the panacea that she seems to suggest.
Ian Lavery (Blyth and Ashington) (Lab)
On 1 January next year, the Government will rightly ban the disgraceful practice of fire and rehire, yet some employers appear determined to exploit the situation before these protections take effect. In the north-east, Taylor Wimpey has just issued dismissal notices to 31 joiners and 19 scaffolders in an attempt to force them on to worse terms and conditions, leaving hard-working families facing uncertainty in the run-up to Christmas. Will the Leader of the House make time for a debate on this shameful practice and join me in urging Taylor Wimpey to withdraw those notices and return to meaningful negotiations with the workforce and Unite the union?
Sir Alan Campbell
My hon. Friend, as ever, is a champion for working people in his constituency. The points that he raises, which I know about from reports from my constituency, are deeply concerning. As he points out, the Employment Rights Act 2025 aims to prevent unscrupulous fire and rehire practices and guarantees fundamental protections for working people. Let me be clear: it is unacceptable for any employer to attempt to degrade workers’ terms and conditions before statutory protections come into effect. I hope that employers, including Taylor Wimpey, hear his comments today, because I can assure them that if they do not, he will continue to make them.
Sir Ashley Fox (Bridgwater) (Con)
The quality of life of many local people in Bridgwater is being undermined by a small minority who show little regard for others with street drinking, drug misuse, shoplifting and other forms of intimidating and antisocial behaviour. There is a widespread perception locally that Somerset council and the police are not responding with the urgency that the situation demands. Can I therefore ask for a debate in Government time on what more can be done to support towns such as Bridgwater, so that the interests of decent, law-abiding residents and businesses come first and we can restore pride and confidence in our town centre?
Sir Alan Campbell
The total funding settlement for the police for 2026-27 provides up to £21.2 billion for police forces, for counter-terrorism policing and for wider systems, but it is important that that money finds its way to the frontline, particularly in town centres. What the hon. Gentleman has said will echo with other town centres. It is important that we use that money to get extra neighbourhood officers on patrol. I hope that his local council and his local police force have heard what he has said, because they have a crucial role to play. If they are getting the resources that they need, there are no excuses; they need to get on and use them to make sure that people feel safe in their town and village centres.
Bell Ribeiro-Addy (Clapham and Brixton Hill) (Lab)
I chair the all-party parliamentary group for Afrikan reparations, and this Saturday 17 October will be our fourth annual conference. It has been an eventful year in the global campaign: the UN declared the trafficking of enslaved Africans as the gravest crime against humanity; the King referred a petition from Jamaica to the Privy Council; and a UK representative even spoke at a UN General Assembly side event on restitution. However, the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office still has not accepted our invitation to address the conference. Given the changing global landscape and the likely focus at the upcoming Commonwealth Heads of Government summit on reparations, will the Leader of the House encourage his colleagues to send a Minister or at least to let us know when we might expect a slightly changed statement on the Government’s evolving position on reparatory justice?
Sir Alan Campbell
The Government’s position on reparations—I saw what happened, in particular with the petition that came from Jamaica—has not changed. However, I will take away my hon. Friend’s request to see whether the FCDO can provide a Minister, because it is important that we work together, even if some people will not necessarily want to hear what the Government have to say.
Douglas Lumsden (Aberdeen South) (Con)
Before recess, senior officials from Ofcom gave a dreadful performance at the Scottish Affairs Committee as they failed to justify why my constituents were denied bespoke news programme coverage via STV North. It was Ofcom that allowed that to happen, despite clear local opposition. Ofcom’s local responsibilities have grown substantially in recent years, yet it appears unable to fulfil its basic duty to ensure sufficient regional news coverage. Will the Leader of the House grant a debate in Government time on whether Ofcom is still able to fulfil the legal responsibilities on which it was founded to uphold?
Sir Alan Campbell
I am a big fan of the Select Committee process, but it does need people, when they give evidence, to take part in good faith and give good responses to Members’ questions. Let me take this issue away to the relevant Department and to think about it. However, if the hon. Gentleman wants to make his case at length, a Westminster Hall debate or an Adjournment debate would be the way to do that.
Callum Anderson (Buckingham and Bletchley) (Lab)
Over the conference recess, I had the pleasure of joining pupils, staff, and parents at Buckingham primary school to celebrate its platinum award for outdoor play and learning, which is so crucial to helping children foster a sense of creativity, independence and confidence. Will the Leader of the House join me in congratulating the school on its achievement? Will he consider granting a debate in Government time on the importance of outdoor play for children’s health and wellbeing?
Sir Alan Campbell
I certainly join my hon. Friend in thanking the staff at Buckingham primary school and nursery, as well as teaching staff across the country for their hard work and commitment. In my constituency, I have seen at first hand the importance of outdoor play and outdoor learning, and I agree with him that it is so important. I encourage him to apply for a Westminster Hall debate, so that he and other Members can highlight the benefits of outdoor play. I think it is an important matter.
Sarah Dyke (Glastonbury and Somerton) (LD)
As the nights draw in and temperatures start to drop, householders who rely on heating oil are facing bills that have doubled in a year. Unlike gas and electricity, heating oil has no price cap to protect them. The sector simply is not working for consumers. That is why the Liberal Democrats are calling for the cap to be extended to every household that relies on heating oil. Will the Leader of the House urge the relevant Minister to meet me without delay, so that no family in Glastonbury and Somerton is left to face this winter in a cold home?
Sir Alan Campbell
The Government have already made some important steps in that regard. I am not going to speculate, but the cost of living, and the cost of energy and heating, is certainly at the forefront of the Chancellor’s mind. If the hon. Lady wants a meeting with the relevant Minister to draw attention to the particular issues affecting her constituency, I will help her to arrange one.
Tracy Gilbert (Edinburgh North and Leith) (Lab)
The Leader of the House may be aware of the recent coverage of the industry’s concerns about the future deployment of floating offshore wind technology in the North sea. Significant investment has already been made, including in my constituency, to service floating offshore wind deployment and the Government’s clean power 2030 action plan, which details the energy and economic opportunities for floating offshore wind technology. Will the Leader of the House confirm that the Government will support all emerging renewable technology going forward, and will he schedule an oral statement on the future energy generation mix in the North sea?
Sir Alan Campbell
The only way to bring energy bills down for good is by taking control through renewables to deliver energy security, with clean, home-grown power. We have already secured £100 billion of private investment in clean power since the election, and secured enough clean energy projects to power 23 million homes. We are supporting workers through the transition to clean energy, including by doubling the number of clean energy jobs across the UK by the end of the decade. I am sure that the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero will want to keep the House updated on what is a very important matter.
Lewis Cocking (Broxbourne) (Con)
Fuel prices in my constituency are consistently higher than in neighbouring areas. A litre of petrol costs £1.82 in Hoddesdon, in the north of my constituency, compared with £1.64 in Enfield —from the same company. Can we have a statement on what the Government are doing to stop my constituents in Broxbourne getting ripped off when they fill up their cars and vans at the petrol pumps?
Sir Alan Campbell
The hon. Gentleman raises an important matter, which affects a number of constituencies. The recent introduction of the fuel finder creates greater price transparency and increases pressure on retailers to price their fuel fairly, but the Competition and Markets Authority is also using that data to monitor how fuel prices vary between different areas, to ensure that competition in the fuel market is working properly. I know that what is happening in rural areas is of particular concern to the Government.
Paul Davies (Colne Valley) (Lab)
Earlier this week, as chair of the APPG on tackling loneliness and connected communities, I led a roundtable discussion of youth education and skills development. It is clear that young people face many challenges in this area, but the Workers’ Educational Association has highlighted that about 9 million adults in the UK lack essential skills such as literacy and numeracy. With that in mind, will the Government make a statement on the important role of lifelong learning when it comes to closing this very concerning skills gap?
Sir Alan Campbell
We believe that everyone should have the chance to develop their skills, no matter their stage of life. The adult skills fund is helping adults across the country access learning that can transform their prospects. I encourage my hon. Friend, who is a powerful advocate on these matters, to apply for a Westminster Hall debate so that we can explore what further steps can be taken to promote lifelong learning.
Ben Lake (Ceredigion Preseli) (PC)
Almost three quarters of homes in Ceredigion Preseli do not have a connection to the mains gas network, meaning that they rely on oil and liquefied petroleum gas for their heating and cooking. Further to the point made by the hon. Member for Glastonbury and Somerton (Sarah Dyke), they are therefore not able to benefit from the energy price cap and are fully exposed to the significant increase in prices following the crisis in the middle east. Could we have an urgent statement from the Government on the support that will be made available to off-grid homes this winter?
Sir Alan Campbell
If the hon. Member for Glastonbury and Somerton (Sarah Dyke) is seeking a meeting with Ministers in a cross-party spirit, perhaps the hon. Gentleman will want to join her.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
One hundred and twenty-five years ago, Seebohm Rowntree launched his report, “Poverty: A Study of Town Life”, which was an encyclic understanding of the levels of poverty in York. Just last week, the University of York launched a similar report looking at the city, where poverty is still embedded in our communities. Could the Leader of the House say what the Government are doing to ensure that Departments come together to address poverty? Will they look at the work that the University of York is doing with me to bring our communities together, to ensure that people with lived experience lead that agenda?
Sir Alan Campbell
I commend my hon. Friend for the work that she describes, because ending poverty is not just a noble aim; it is something for which this Government have great sympathy. We are taking action in this area through our child poverty strategy, which will lift half a million children out of poverty by 2030, but as she acknowledges, there are still lessons to be learned and further progress to be made. As I announced when I set out the future business, we have a Budget in a couple of weeks’ time, and there will be ample opportunity in the Budget debate for my hon. Friend to make her case.
Alison Griffiths (Bognor Regis and Littlehampton) (Con)
In West Sussex, we are still waiting to hear what the shape of a future unitary council might look like, yet Members from across the Chamber may be aware of a WhatsApp message that suggests that the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government has already confirmed a timetable but has yet to bring it to the House. Will the Leader of the House please encourage the Secretary of State to come to the House and update us as soon as possible?
Sir Alan Campbell
It is obviously really important that we get reorganisation right, which is why the Housing Secretary has withdrawn or paused decisions in 14 areas. We will set out the next steps as soon as possible, because I understand the frustration across the House on this issue.
Laura Kyrke-Smith (Aylesbury) (Lab)
Earlier this week, the Prime Minister spoke in this Chamber about the threat that misinformation and disinformation pose to our democracy. Trusted local media is vital to countering the false information that is out there, yet our local media outlets are struggling to stay afloat. That includes Bucks Radio in my constituency, which recently missed out on funding from the Government’s local news outlet fund. Can the Leader of the House find time for a debate on the importance of trusted local media and the Government’s role in supporting it?
Sir Alan Campbell
My hon. Friend is absolutely right to highlight the importance of local radio in our communities, and the importance of trusted news sources. We have launched our local media strategy, which increases community radio funding to £1 million per year. I appreciate that not everyone will be able to benefit from that at this point in time, but I encourage her to apply for a Westminster Hall debate to see whether we can further expand on her theme, because I am sure it will resonate with a lot of Members across the House.
Mr Will Forster (Woking) (LD)
I recently had the privilege of spending time with the amazing staff and volunteers at Woking’s homeless shelter and charity, the York Road Project. They do a great job at turning around people’s lives, but they are unable to do so and to get people into new homes if we are not building them. In my constituency alone, 2,000 properties have planning permission, but none is under construction. Some had planning permission granted before the pandemic. Will the Government agree to a debate to ensure that developers are held to account for this situation, and will they introduce “use it or lose it” powers so that we can grow our economy and build the homes we desperately need?
Sir Alan Campbell
The hon. Gentleman will know that this issue is a priority for the Prime Minister, not least because of his experiences when he was the Mayor of Manchester. We are very keen to see schemes unblocked so that we get new homes, but we want to explore all sorts of other possibilities as well. Should the hon. Gentleman seek an Adjournment debate or a Westminster Hall debate, perhaps he could get the latest from Housing Ministers and the Minister for Homelessness about what further action is envisaged by the Government.
Alistair Strathern (Hitchin) (Lab)
I recently had the pleasure of visiting the much-loved Next Page Books in Hitchin to learn more about its “Ask Me What I’m Reading” campaign, which is getting people right across the town talking about the joy of a good book. I have always been a huge fan of “The Very Hungry Caterpillar”, but could I tempt the Leader of the House to share with the rest of us what he is reading at the moment? Perhaps we could have a statement from the Government about what more we can do to support much-loved independent booksellers such as Next Page.
Sir Alan Campbell
As my hon. Friend will know, this year we launched the National Year of Reading 2026 to encourage good habits and to address the long-term decline in reading enjoyment. I thank the “Ask Me What I’m Reading” campaign for helping us to achieve that. In answer to his question, I am currently reading “The Generals” by Iain Dale, a collection of essays on leadership and generals. It is about how to improve leadership, and when I have finished it I am going to lend it to the Leader of the Opposition.
Wendy Morton (Aldridge-Brownhills) (Con)
Will the Leader of the House make time for a debate on the democratic deficit created by the new scheme of delegation in planning? By restricting councillors’ ability to call in applications, these changes will deny communities a meaningful voice in planning decisions. We urgently need more clarity and to understand how the Government reconcile that with their commitment to devolve power. Will they reconsider these changes to protect local democratic accountability?
Sir Alan Campbell
It is really important that we hear the voices of local people, and that they are not just heard, but can actually influence the process. At the same time, as the right hon. Member points out, the Prime Minister is absolutely committed to further devolution and making sure that decisions are made closer to where they have effect, rather than coming out from some centralised system or centralised planning infrastructure process. If she wants to seek an Adjournment debate or a Westminster Hall debate about planning, she can put that to the relevant Minister and see the direction of travel.
Warinder Juss (Wolverhampton West) (Lab)
Many families who inherit retirement properties with age-restricted occupancy requirements are finding them increasingly difficult to sell, and bereaved relatives, many of whom are pensioners themselves, can face years of ongoing service charges, council tax liabilities, maintenance costs and significant loss in property value, which cause considerable financial and mental distress. Will the Leader of the House please facilitate a meeting with the Minister of State for Housing and Planning so we can discuss these issues with the retirement housing sector and see how bereaved families in this situation can be helped?
Sir Alan Campbell
We are committed to ensuring that leaseholders, including those living in retirement housing, are protected from unfair and unreasonable practices, and we are giving consideration to the recommendations of the older people’s housing taskforce, including further work on resale values. I will make sure that my hon. Friend gets the meeting he seeks with the Planning Minister, but this theme has been raised before—I am not sure if it is exactly the same issue, but the issues are similar enough—and perhaps one meeting with the Planning Minister would allow all these issues to be aired.
Adam Dance (Yeovil) (LD)
Yeovil’s new police station will not have a custody unit, after it was shut under the Conservatives, because years of under-investment in Avon and Somerset police means there is not enough money or staff, so officers have to keep wasting hours a day going to Bridgwater station. Will the Leader of the House make time for a debate on the need to give rural police forces like Avon and Somerset a fairer funding boost, so we can get a custody suite back in Yeovil?
Sir Alan Campbell
The hon. Gentleman may want to look to an Adjournment debate or a Westminster Hall debate to make that specific point about his constituency, which he is justified in doing. The Government are providing more for the police settlement for this year. As we have stated on many occasions, we are very keen to ensure that rural areas and rural forces get their fair share. Ultimately, however, how the infrastructure of the force is either maintained or stays open is a matter for local police and crime commissioners.
Becky Gittins (Clwyd East) (Lab)
On Saturday, I will be addressing a conference of co-operative movement members in Wales, and next year is the 100th anniversary of the partnership between the Labour party and the Co-operative party—a milestone that will be celebrated by having a Co-operative Prime Minister in No. 10. Will the Leader of the House therefore make time on the Floor of this House for a debate both celebrating that achievement and looking at how we can grow the co-operative movement, not least to the benefit of the members in Wales?
Sir Alan Campbell
As the Prime Minister has made clear, he is very proud to be a co-operator. As my hon. Friend points out, we have a Co-operative Prime Minister, who has said that he wants to embed the principles and values of the co-operative movement into what the Government are doing, which I think is an important step forward. I will give some thought to whether we can find time for a debate on this matter, because I think it affects what the Government are striving to do in all sorts of areas.
Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)
Can we have a debate in Government time on the increasingly feral behaviour of residential property management companies such as FirstPort, Remus and Fexco, which are blighting the lives of too many of our constituents with unreasonable financial demands and a complete lack of accountability and transparency? This has gone on for too long, and there is an opportunity with the draft Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Bill for Ministers to do something about it. Can one of them come to the House to explain what they will do?
Sir Alan Campbell
The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to call out inappropriate or damaging practice, and I hope such companies have heard what he has to say. The Government are committed not just to bringing forward that legislation, but to continuing this process to support people who are caught out by this practice. Therefore, there will be debates on it from time to time, but I will also give some thought to whether we need a Government debate outside that process.
Rachel Blake (Cities of London and Westminster) (Lab/Co-op)
Bedrolite is a medication for those with a very rare form of epilepsy. There are, I understand, four private prescriptions and three NHS prescriptions in the country. It is made by a company based in the Netherlands called Bedrocan, which was in the news at the weekend because it is going bust. One of my constituents’ families is deeply affected by this and needs this medication, but their prescription is running out in December, and hon. Members can only imagine the deep concern that his family feel at the moment. I have written to the Secretary of State and to the Minister responsible, and I believe they could also be assisted by the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office through its relationship with the Netherlands. Can the Leader of the House support me in bringing together all parts of Government to address this urgent issue for anybody using this important medication?
Sir Alan Campbell
This is a really serious matter, and my hon. Friend is right to bring it to the Floor of the House, because it is of huge concern to the families affected. She said that she had written to the Secretary of State and the relevant Minister. I am not sure whether she has had a response, but I will make sure that she does get one, and then we will see whether there needs to be a wider conversation across Government, or if it is a matter that the Department of Health can get a grip on.
Clive Jones (Wokingham) (LD)
While the Government have committed to a workforce plan for social care, many carers are pleading for urgent action to help resolve the high vacancy rate and to incentivise people to stay in the sector. Will the Leader of the House allow a debate on delivering the skills and professional development that social care needs to retain its workforce?
Sir Alan Campbell
The hon. Gentleman will have heard what the Prime Minister had to say about these matters at our conference, and indeed outside the conference. They are of real importance to him, and I do hope that we can make progress on the wider issue of social care with all parties across the House. With respect, I say to the hon. Gentleman that, following business questions, there will be a statement on social care, and he may want to put his question directly to the Minister.
Perran Moon (Camborne and Redruth) (Lab)
Party leaders come and go, as members of some parties know and those of other parties may shortly find out. However, the longest-serving party leader in the UK is standing down. The well-respected Dick Cole, the leader of Mebyon Kernow, the Party for Cornwall, has served his party with distinction for an astonishing 29 years. Will the Leader of the House congratulate Dick on his achievement, and wish him well with the words, “Keslowena ha meur ras”?
Sir Alan Campbell
I absolutely join my hon. Friend in congratulating Dick Cole, the leader of the Party for Cornwall, on this remarkable achievement. Whatever our political differences, nearly three decades of service to his party and to public life is a significant contribution and one that deserves recognition across the House. I wish him well for the future, and I would express that by asking my hon. Friend to take back my best wishes and to use the appropriate language, because I am sure he pronounces it better than I would.
Dr Luke Evans (Hinckley and Bosworth) (Con)
Over the summer, we had a massive fly-tip in Hinkley. Make no mistake—it is a criminal act and those involved need to be held accountable, but so does the landowner. In this case, that is the Liberal Democrat-run borough council. When two JCBs come in and drop 2,500 tonnes of waste, someone needs to be held accountable. The questions rightly being asked are: what was done to secure this site, and what was done to clear it up? The bill will be £1.3 million. I have taken up the council’s request to write to DEFRA to ask for help, but I have not yet heard back. Would the Leader of the House use his good offices to follow up with DEFRA, while I follow up with the borough council about what it is doing?
Sir Alan Campbell
The hon. Gentleman, as I have said before, is a strong advocate for his constituents. I pay tribute to him for that, and he is right to raise this matter. I know that DEFRA takes these matters very seriously indeed and I give him my word that we will contact the Department after this session to help ensure he gets a response to his letter. The case he raises is concerning. I trust him to get on and deal with the council himself. I hope that it treats the Member of Parliament with respect and gives him the answers to the questions he asks; I expect that it has heard his words today.
Sonia Kumar (Dudley) (Lab)
The month, the historic UNESCO Wren’s Nest celebrates 70 years. Will my right hon. Friend join me in thanking the Friends of Wren’s Nest, such as Paul Floyd, geologist Graham Worton and others who ensure that the 420-million-year-old treasures are protected for the next generation? Will he allow a debate on protecting such precious habitats as the Wren’s Nest? He is always welcome to visit my constituency and pick up a fossil.
Sir Alan Campbell
I am very tempted, but I am rather frightened that they will retain me as a fossil if I go! I pay tribute the people my hon. Friend mentioned for everything that is happening; I wish them well and thank them. She allows me to say what I have said before on these occasions, which is that volunteers are so important. They are the golden thread that runs through our communities. This is a remarkable achievement.
Tessa Munt (Wells and Mendip Hills) (LD)
Metachromatic leukodystrophy, known as MLD, is a devastating genetic disease that progressively destroys the nervous system. Children born apparently healthy lose their ability to walk, talk, see, hear, swallow and then, eventually, breathe. Most do not live to enjoy their fifth birthday. Existing MLD treatment on the NHS is highly effective at halting the disease and is delivered at the Royal Manchester Children’s hospital, but early diagnosis is essential. We already test newborn babies for 10 conditions. Without the need to take any additional blood, MLD screening could be added to each newborn baby’s heel prick test at a cost of 17p per test. Will the Leader of the House ask the Department of Health and Social Care to meet me to discuss this simple and inexpensive solution, which would save the life of a child per month in this country?
Sir Alan Campbell
I agree with the hon. Lady that for those affected by MLD, it can be a devastating and life-changing disease. She is absolutely right to say that early diagnosis is essential and highly effective at halting the disease. It is important that every Government Department, but especially the Department of Health and Social Care, looks at ways of investing early on to make sure that there is not even greater cost and tragedy further down the line. I am happy to try to facilitate a meeting with the relevant Minister so that she can discuss the matter further.
Johanna Baxter (Paisley and Renfrewshire South) (Lab)
Last month I visited Save Ukraine’s hope and healing centre in Irpin to see the incredible work it is doing to rehabilitate children who have been rescued following abduction by Russia. During my visit, I had the honour of delivering beautiful tartan scarves and toys to the children, which had been generously donated by Ewan MacDonald of Houston Kiltmakers, based in my constituency. The children were thrilled with their gifts and intrigued to learn about the history of tartan and Paisley’s textile heritage. Will the Leader of the House join me in thanking Ewan MacDonald and his whole team for their generous support for the Ukrainian people, and for continuing the proud tradition of Paisley’s textile industry?
Sir Alan Campbell
My hon. Friend has been a tireless campaigner for the Ukrainian cause, and I pay tribute to her for that. I will absolutely join her in thanking Ewan and his team for their generous support for the people of Ukraine and their remarkable work. I pay tribute to all those involved in the hope and healing centre for their incredible efforts in supporting children in the most horrific circumstances, and I thank her for the work that she is doing.
Charlie Dewhirst (Bridlington and The Wolds) (Con)
Madam Deputy Speaker, you will no doubt be aware that East Yorkshire is blessed with some of the most productive farmland in the country, yet the Humberhead solar project threatens to plaster 4,000 acres in solar panels. Even more concerning, Natural England appears to have amended the boundaries of the proposed Yorkshire Wolds area of outstanding natural beauty around the village of Londesborough to avoid coming into conflict with this solar farm project. May we have a debate in Government time on the proliferation and cumulative impact of solar farms, and their detrimental effect on domestic food security?
Sir Alan Campbell
I advise the hon. Gentleman to seek an Adjournment debate or a Westminster Hall debate on these matters. He is right to raise the concerns of his local constituency, and the opportunity to put directly to Ministers, in an expanded way, the concerns he has raised with me today.
Samantha Niblett (South Derbyshire) (Lab)
It was reported in Derby Telegraph this week that Derbyshire county council, in failing special educational needs and disabilities children, has in the past year cost the taxpayer £79,000 in compensation paid out, with £20,000 paid to one family alone. However, those families do not want to be getting to the point of compensation being paid out—they want help. Yet in the past three months of surgeries, I have had little progress and little in the way of updates for the families in South Derbyshire that my team and I support, including Hayley Archer who is an incredible advocate for her son but whose life is being ruined by Derbyshire county council. Derbyshire county council is one of the councils having 90% of its deficit wiped out by this Labour Government. Does the Leader of the House agree that that huge help to DCC should see a marked improvement in outcomes for the people I represent in South Derbyshire and that the council should be held accountable for evidencing value for money by delivering for SEND families instead of ignoring them?
Sir Alan Campbell
My hon. Friend is a great advocate for her constituents and I join her in paying tribute to Hayley Archer. She is absolutely right that her constituents have a right to see improvements in this vital area, yet too often in business questions we hear about Reform-led councils who are simply letting down the people they are supposed to be representing. I hope Derbyshire county council has heard what my hon. Friend has said and takes action urgently to deliver for SEND families.
Vikki Slade (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (LD)
This week another young life was lost on Dorset’s rural roads, as the second Wimborne man died this year after the roads around this small town saw the deaths of four people last December. Another family narrowly avoided tragedy after a vehicle ploughed into the front of their house on the Cranborne road. While the incidents are subject to investigation, the 60 mph default speed limit on country lanes means that road safety requests have to go through long and costly processes for each and every one, making it a matrix of delay, whereas a rural speed limit of 40 mph would better suit the countryside where the roads simply were not built for the level of traffic. In advance of legislation linked to the road safety strategy, will the Leader of the House make time for a debate in Government time on reducing road deaths?
Sir Alan Campbell
The hon. Lady raises very important matters for her constituency that echo what is happening across the country. We have announced the first road safety strategy in over a decade. It will saves thousands of lives over the next decade as we implement a plan to reduce deaths and serious injuries by around two thirds by 2035, but that is cold comfort to people who are caught up in these tragedies. The Government are also keen to reduce the red tape to ensure decisions can be made locally and quickly. I will raise the matter with the relevant Minister and get a response for her.
Sarah Smith (Hyndburn) (Lab)
Will the Leader of the House join me in sending condolences to the family and friends of Labour Councillor Dave Parkins? Dave was a proud veteran and a diligent and compassionate councillor for 32 years in Huncoat. In his most recent election in 2023, he secured 80% of the vote—an example to us all. “Mr Huncoat” will be sorely missed by all of us in Hyndburn.
Sir Alan Campbell
I am sure the whole House will join me in sending condolences to the family of Councillor Dave Parkins and in thanking him for his years of public service. I thank his family for sharing him with a life in politics and a life of public service. The commitment of our local councillors and public servants is vital to the success of our constituencies. I thank my hon. Friend for raising this today. I send our condolences to the family of Councillor Parkins, but also our thanks.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
Will the Leader of the House ask the Foreign Secretary to make a statement on the Inter-American Court of Human Rights’ recent resolution concerning the safety, health and freedom of the Catholic Bishop Abelardo Mata in Nicaragua, and on what representations the Government are making to urge the Nicaraguan authorities to end the persecution, harassment, and intimidation of religious leaders, to respect their right to express their views and practise their faith without any fear of retaliation, and to protect Bishop Mata’s life, health and liberty?
Sir Alan Campbell
As ever, the hon. Gentleman raises a serious matter. We are committed to defending freedom of religion and belief for all, and we continue to urge the authorities to release political prisoners, wherever they are, immediately and unconditionally if they are held as a matter of faith or belief. I will ensure that he receives a response from the Minister with responsibility for the Americas.
Mark Sewards (Leeds South West and Morley) (Lab)
I represent a 15-year-old constituent with a serious heart condition that he is awaiting surgery for. He has been told not to overexert himself, because even walking puts his health at risk. Sadly, his family’s appeal for a blue badge has been turned down because they cannot demonstrate that he will have the problem in three years, post-surgery. Certain individuals on qualifying benefits can get a short-term blue badge, but my constituent does not qualify, despite his health condition. Will the Leader of the House grant a debate in Government time on the need to change the scheme, so that we can help people, especially children, avoid this needless trap?
Sir Alan Campbell
My hon. Friend raises an important case regarding the gap in the provision of blue badges. I will ensure that he gets a response from the relevant Minister. If that is not a sufficiently appropriate response to his concerns, then I encourage him to seek an Adjournment debate so that he can make his case more strongly.
Gordon McKee (Glasgow South) (Lab)
Residents in Cathcart in my constituency have been waiting more than five years for a gate to Linn Park to be fixed and reopened by Glasgow city council. Thanks to the work of the Friends of Linn Park group, progress is finally being made. Does the Leader of the House agree that it has taken far too long, and will he join me in recognising the work of the Friends of Linn Park?
Sir Alan Campbell
It certainly sounds as if it has taken far too long. I do not know why the council has prevaricated in that regard. My hon. Friend’s question allows me to say that the settlement for Scotland is the highest on record, and that if it has got down to a local level, then councils cannot claim that they do not have the resources to address such issues. I hope that the council has heard what my hon. Friend said, and I pay tribute to the volunteers for their successful campaign to alleviate the situation.
Jayne Kirkham (Truro and Falmouth) (Lab/Co-op)
Will the Leader of the House make time for a debate on the financial impact on local authorities and Government of the loophole that allows retrospective reclassification by the valuation office of second homes as holiday-let businesses? It has led to councils having to refund years of council tax—up to £10 million in somewhere like Cornwall—and central Government having to reimburse councils for future shortfalls.
Sir Alan Campbell
That is a concern that will be held by Members across the House, which is why we published a call for evidence, seeking views on the tax treatment of holiday lets—evidence will be published in due course. If my hon. Friend seeks a meeting with the relevant Minister to discuss the topic further, I will help her to achieve that.
Steve Yemm (Mansfield) (Lab)
Following on from the Labour Government’s £4 billion transfer of reserves to the mineworkers’ pension scheme and the British Coal staff superannuation scheme, both sets of trustees have set out proposals for how future surpluses could benefit the thousands of scheme members, both in Mansfield and across the country. Will the Leader of the House press the Government to address those trustee proposals in the October Budget, so that former mineworkers and their families can receive the fair and sustainable settlement that they fought for over many decades?
Sir Alan Campbell
My hon. Friend has been an ardent campaigner for former mineworkers in his part of the world, and I pay tribute to him for that. He raises an important point regarding the proposals, and if he gives me further details, I will ensure that the Chancellor hears them during deliberations on what might be in the Budget.
Tom Hayes (Bournemouth East) (Lab)
SOBO Beach is a brilliant business and a thriving community, but it is set to close. An 11th-hour U-turn this week saw Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole council give SOBO Beach an 11-month delay to its inevitable closure, despite saying that such a move was impossible. There are concerns that the council leadership may have made incorrect statements to the council meeting that decided on that closure. Will the Leader of the House arrange a meeting for me with the relevant Minister so that I can raise my concerns on behalf of my constituents—nearly 10,000 people signed a petition to save SOBO Beach.
Sir Alan Campbell
My hon. Friend is a tireless campaigner for his constituents, and I will help him to arrange a meeting with the relevant Minister to discuss those serious concerns.
Patricia Ferguson (Glasgow West) (Lab)
We are still in October, and my office is already receiving a great many representations on the antisocial use of fireworks in many of our communities—particularly in Knightswood in Glasgow West. I welcome the Government’s consultation on fireworks, which has recently closed, and I ask Members to note that my private Member’s Bill will have its Second Reading on 4 December—I hope that is in the diary. Can the Leader of the House tell us the timeframe for responding to the consultation, and the plan thereafter? We are too late for this year’s bonfire and fireworks season, but next year we must do better.
Sir Alan Campbell
It is a timely opportunity for my hon. Friend to raise the matter, and I am sure it will be raised again as we approach bonfire night. The consultation on targeted reforms to fireworks and pyrotechnics legislation closed recently, and we are rightly reviewing the evidence before we publish our response. I also understand that my hon. Friend will soon be meeting the Minister to discuss those matters further. I cannot say what the timescale is, but I am sure that my ministerial colleagues appreciate the urgency.
Euan Stainbank (Falkirk) (Lab)
This year marks the 25th anniversary of the Millennium Link project, which restored the Forth & Clyde and Union canals as the arteries of Falkirk’s economy, and built the iconic Falkirk Wheel, connecting the two canals. Will the Leader of the House commend the staff at voluntary canal associations, and everyone else involved in the project over the years, and join me to visit the new traditional skill centre currently being built at Lock 16? It will regenerate the former AG Barr factory, provide new jobs and opportunities for young people, and is supported through the Falkirk and Grangemouth growth deal and the Pride in Place impact fund.
Sir Alan Campbell
I join my hon. Friend in congratulating everyone involved in the Millennium Link project. It sounds to me that they have done a remarkable job in cleaning up the area. I thank him for his enticing invitation to visit the site of Scotland’s Centre of Excellence for Canals and Traditional Skills to see the fantastic work that has been done, not least because it is about environmental improvement and heritage, in which I have a keen interest and am a big supporter. It is also about the jobs that are created by those projects, which is important for my hon. Friend’s constituency and others.
Jim Dickson (Dartford) (Lab)
Dartford grammar school for boys, known locally as an academic powerhouse and centre for learning excellence, sits at the heart of our community in Dartford. This year, it has turned 450 years old. Among the many notable alumni are Sir Mick Jagger of The Rolling Stones, war poet Sidney Keyes, computer scientist John Rushby and sprinter Adam Gemili. Will the Leader of the House join me in wishing Dartford grammar school—including headteacher Julian Metcalf, chair of governors Robert Tibbolt, and all the trustees, staff, parents and students—a very happy birthday?
Sir Alan Campbell
I join my hon. Friend in wishing Dartford grammar school a happy and historic 450th birthday. What a remarkable achievement for a school to have reached its 450th anniversary. I pay tribute to headteacher Julian Metcalf, and all the hard-working teachers and students over the years who have made the school such a success. I wish them well for the future.
Phil Brickell (Bolton West) (Lab)
Councils across the country are spending millions of pounds on single-occupancy taxis for SEND transport, while ageing minibus fleets go unreplaced. One manufacturer in my constituency reports that complex procurement processes, excessive bureaucracy and lengthy tendering delays are preventing councils from ordering new vehicles, despite there being clear demand to do so. Will the Leader of the House use his good offices to secure a statement from the Government setting out how they will ensure that the buy British agenda helps councils modernise fleets, reduce transport costs and support British manufacturing jobs?
Sir Alan Campbell
My hon. Friend raises a crucial issue for his constituents. The Government are committed to ensuring that the £400 billion of taxpayers’ money spent on public procurement each year actively supports British industry. He raises an interesting point, and I will ensure that he gets an update from the relevant Department.
Andy MacNae (Rossendale and Darwen) (Lab)
McDermott is building 71 homes in my constituency on a sensitive site in Bacup. The development was originally refused by the council, but was approved on appeal. From the outset, McDermott has been dismissive of planning conditions and residents’ concerns, particularly regarding ecology, site access and road safety. The issues persist, despite a stop notice, three breaches of conditions and magistrates fines, which seem to offer no deterrent at all. The council is left managing numerous complaints, despite having refused the original application, and the community bears the cost of decisions made by a remote inspector in Bristol. Will the Leader of the House agree to a debate on how we can better support local authorities in such situations, and ensure that developers such as McDermott are held accountable when they repeatedly breach planning conditions?
Sir Alan Campbell
The case my hon. Friend raises does sound concerning. Local planning authorities have a wide range of enforcement powers, and there are strong penalties for non-compliance, including unlimited fines; it is for them ultimately to decide how to take action. However, I hope that the offenders, as it were, have heard what my hon. Friend has said today, and I encourage his local authority to make use of those powers. I will also ask the relevant Minister to write to my hon. Friend, and, following that, he may wish to consider either an Adjournment or a Westminster Hall debate so that he can make his case in more detail.
National Care Service
(1 day, 9 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Social Care and Mental Health (Alison McGovern)
With your permission, Madam Deputy Speaker, before I make a statement on the creation of the national care service, I want to pay my own tribute to Sir David Amess and his family. We are all thinking of them today, and I am reflecting in particular on how much Sir David gave to this House.
It is in the news this week that Audrey Joughlin is celebrating almost 80 years of service in the NHS. This remarkable lady has been working in the NHS since the day it was founded in 1948, and today she is volunteering at the Royal Liverpool hospital. I want to also wish a happy birthday to my constituent Vibeke Nicklin, who is turning 80, having spent 60 years as a nurse caring for patients.
When I read about these women, I feel nothing but pride; to know that they are from my home town in Merseyside just about makes my heart burst. These incredible women show what a wonderful thing it is that people are living longer—more grandparents are living to see their grandchildren as adults—but it also sets a test for our generation of politicians. When Audrey began her career, there were fewer than 6 million people aged over 65 in the UK; today, that figure is over 13 million. According to the Office for National Statistics, by 2050, 18 million people will be aged 65 and over; the number aged 75 and over will rise to more than 10 million; and the number aged 85 and over will have doubled. As the Prime Minister said yesterday, we cannot turn away from the question of social care. People who depend on care deserve better, and the dedicated staff deserve better, too.
This issue of social care has often been overlooked for two reasons. The first reason is who does most of the care. I can explain this simply in three words: working-class women. Working-class women never get a fair hearing in this country, but those in social care need to be heard right now. The second reason is what happens to people when they experience a failing care system. It is not that people do not like talking about getting old; too many people who go through our care system are traumatised by the experience, and it is too hard for them to talk about it. As the Prime Minister said at the Labour party conference, social care workers often feel invisible. Who can blame them, when 80% of care workers working for independent providers receive within 10% of the minimum wage?
We are all looking forward to the findings of Baroness Casey’s important review, but the truth is that we cannot afford to wait for her to finish that work before getting on with the job. Ask any family who have gone through the nightmare of trying to sort out care for their loved ones—the status quo cannot be accepted. Beyond the immediate impact on families, the NHS is paying the price of our failure to get a grip; hospitals are dealing with 999 calls from a failing care system, and we have the appalling spectacle of corridor care in hospitals across the country. If we carry on like this, our broken social care system will break the NHS, too. We cannot let that happen.
We on the Government Benches remember that we were elected on a manifesto that said that we would build a national care service, improve the lives of the people who draw on care, and build a system that puts people before profit, and we are already working hard to deliver Baroness Casey’s early recommendations, whether on motor neurone disease, dementia or safeguarding. That is why the Prime Minister has taken the decision to build a national care service, with free personal care, adjusting the triple lock to make it possible. Baroness Casey will report next summer; meanwhile, we will prepare the ground now for the new service.
I am sick of people looking down their nose at social care staff, who do a highly skilled job that could provide the young people of this country with a great career. Yesterday, I spoke to our partners at Skills for Care about our workforce action plan. At the heart of this is a commitment not just to older generations who need care, but to younger generations who just need their chance in life. Being unemployed for any period can damage someone’s confidence, but doing a skilled job like social care can give people a sense of pride, and a pay packet they earn themselves. That is why we will offer thousands more academy places to help young jobseekers into good jobs in care, and are bringing in the first national collective pension scheme dedicated to care workers; and it is why we have already passed the Employment Rights Act 2025, which gave more than a million people—many of them care workers—access to sick pay, and raised the minimum wage. We will introduce the first fair pay agreement in adult social care, backed by half a billion pounds. It will put care workers under the protective umbrella of collective bargaining and give them the power that they deserve—not just as a one-off, but forever.
For unpaid carers, we have announced the biggest expansion to the carer’s allowance since the 1970s. We will soon appoint the first unpaid carers’ champion to be a voice for people who provide unpaid care.
For too long, social care has been a Cinderella service, with care staff held back by not having the tools they need to look after people. Recently, however, we have been making good progress. Digital social care records are helping to reduce paperwork and improving the quality of information available to staff, which is vital for good care and saving precious time. Today, I can give the House the update that digital records are now used by 84% of care providers, compared with just 72% when this Government took office, and 92% of people who draw on care are now benefiting from that modernisation.
We are supporting the adoption of preventive technology that was the stuff of science fiction just 10 years ago—home monitoring kits to identify infections early, reminders to avoid missed medication, and specialised sensors to detect and prevent falls. If we can put the best technology in the hands of skilled and emotionally intelligent people, the result will be working-age adults with self-determination, choice and independence in life, and older people at home for longer, in better health, and with a much, much better chance of dying at home, in comfort and in dignity, when the time comes. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions said on Tuesday,
“A good retirement…is about more than income.”—[Official Report, 13 October 2026; Vol. 791, c. 198.]
There are those who say that we cannot afford the national care service; I say that they are asking the country to pay for the cost of failure. This issue is not going away. If our response to the test of an ageing population is simply to find an even larger bucket of sand to stick our heads in, the impact on the NHS—already plain for all to see—will only grow worse.
If the decade after 2010 taught me anything, it is that we do not save money by tearing chunks out of the fabric of our society and then making the NHS pick up the pieces. Most importantly, if we improve population health, people will have a much better quality of life. I do not pretend that it is easy, but our pensioners deserve security and peace of mind. Our national care service will be better for them, families and the NHS. It will ease the pressures we see today; failings in our social care system mean that many pensioners are kept in hospital for longer than they need or want to be, because social care beds are unavailable. The cost of inaction will only be more pressure on the NHS through more ambulance call-outs, more A&E admissions, more corridor care and more people stuck in hospital when they do not have to be there.
We are at a crossroads. Our choice is: either pay the financial and human cost of the failed system that we have now, or build the national care service, stabilise our public finances and enable people to live happier and healthier lives. I urge colleagues to think of not just the consequences of inaction, but what it means for our constituents if we get this right. In place of fear, the rising population of elderly people we represent can grow old in a good society. Instead of corridor care, we would have a thriving NHS, in which unnecessary admission was prevented and people who become unwell recovered quickly and enjoyed their life. Care workers would be recognised for their work, and all of us would gain peace of mind about what happens later in life.
When Audrey began her lifetime of service to our country, she was part of a generation that left the greatest legacy that anyone could hope to build. It meant that when a person falls ill, they never have to worry about the bill. Today we have the chance to carry her generation’s torch into the 21st century, and to leave to our children and grandchildren something as significant as the creation of the NHS. We are ripping off the plaster. I commend this statement to the House.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
I call the shadow Secretary of State.
Damian Hinds (East Hampshire) (Con)
I thank the Minister for advance sight of her statement. I join in what she said about Sir David Amess. Today, again, we remember his service and remarkable contribution to Parliament and public life, including through today’s Children’s Parliament.
In my lifetime, life expectancy has risen by almost a decade. That is wonderful, but as the Minister said, it means that many more people now need care for extended periods—sometimes very extended periods—and that number is only likely to grow. It is imperative for society to address this issue, and it is imperative for us as politicians to find a system that is compassionate, sustainable, affordable and fair. So much the better if we can find common ground across the House on this subject, because a sustainable approach can survive multiple changes of Government. We will approach this subject constructively and positively.
I was surprised to hear the Prime Minister announce fundamental and apparently fixed parts of this policy at the Labour party conference. What are the implications for the Casey review? We do not yet know what the big conversation on care will yield. Is the noble Baroness free to make recommendations that may not fit the model that the Prime Minister has announced?
Apparently, the Prime Minister managed simultaneously to set constraints and to omit a huge amount of practical information that people need. I think one could say charitably that today’s statement adds limit detail to what he set out. Given the use of the phrase, “national care service”, people may understandably be thinking of something more comprehensive than is being proposed, for this is not about all the costs of long-term care. It is not about what, for many people, is the biggest part: residential care. It is only about personal care. Terms like “personal care” and “social care” often get conflated, but the two things can be different, so what is the Government’s definition of what this service is to cover? The statement on the Government website says that the service will be based on need, rather than ability to pay. Does that mean that they do not envisage a fixed contribution for those in a care home, as in Scotland? Is this instead about meeting the cost of individually assessed needs? Will there be any changes to continuing healthcare or funded nursing care?
Half of those receiving local authority long-term social care support in the community are working-age adults, and we assume that what the Government have said about staff also applies to this important part of the care sector, but what else applies? Speaking of staff reforms, the Prime Minister spoke about integrating the care and NHS workforces, but how is that to work in care, which is overwhelmingly in the private and voluntary sectors?
The Government’s statement also says that this system will be
“introduced in phases, so its scope can grow as the savings increase from adjusting the Triple Lock, and as workforce and provider capacity are built up.”
Is spending on the national care service dependent on savings being made from the triple lock? Those are not currently budgeted costs, so the definition of “savings” is itself an interesting one. Does the Minister clearly commit to no new taxes or borrowing under this plan? The part about allowing capacity to be built up suggests not only a transfer of costs from individuals to the state but also a net increase, so how much of a net increase in provision are the Government projecting?
There is one change that it appears may affect the cost of being in a residential care home. The Prime Minister said that no care charges would be paid out of people’s basic state pension. That seems to imply an end to payments from income for care home residents below the lower capital limit down to the weekly personal expenses allowance. Is that interpretation correct?
When she answers, please will the Minister not just say, “These are all details for the Casey review,” because the Government cannot have it both ways. Personal care costs are closely linked to these other aspects of the system, and if the Government had wanted to allow space for the commission to look at the system in the round, they could have done. If they had really wanted to allow time to develop a cross-party consensus on the structure, they could have done. The Government themselves call what the Prime Minister set out at the party conference
“a clear plan to fix the system”,
so please can we have these answers?
Alison McGovern
I thank the shadow Health Secretary for his response. I will try to respond to his questions, but if I miss anything I will follow up in writing afterwards. Let me say to him that he is absolutely right that while politics is what it is, as much as possible we want to work across the House on this issue. For that reason, I would be very happy to meet with him regularly to discuss this.
The right hon. Gentleman asked whether Baroness Casey is free to consider issues as she wishes. She obviously has terms of reference, but my personal experience of Baroness Casey is, just you try stopping her having opinions about anything she wants to have opinions on! We are obviously working closely with her. I have met her a number of times and was really pleased to welcome her to my constituency too.
What we mean by personal care is help using the toilet, cleaning, having a shower and so on—
Alison McGovern
Cleaning oneself. I will happily pick up the question that he raised with me in writing.
On continuing healthcare, there are a number of ways in which, as was the case under the previous Government, the interface between NHS funding and social care funding really matters—not least the better care fund and continuing healthcare. We continue to look at those, and I will happily discuss them. There are improvements we can make in the short term that will help, even as we wait for the Casey review next summer. Likewise on integration with the NHS, Members across the House will all know of good examples where, because of collaborative working on the ground, we see systems that are well integrated. The problem is that that is due to good fortune and good relationships rather than a system and structure that enables it.
The right hon. Gentleman asked about taxation. That is a matter for the Chancellor. We will have the Budget shortly, and I am sure that there will be many questions asked of the Chancellor. He asked me a couple of other questions that I did not quite catch, but I will review them and write to him.
Deirdre Costigan (Ealing Southall) (Lab)
I draw attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests as a proud member of Unison. For too long, care workers in Ealing Southall have lived on rock-bottom wages with no chance to progress in their jobs, so I hugely welcome the Government’s half a billion pound investment in the first ever fair pay agreement for social care. Does the Minister agree that we will never have a good quality social care service in this country unless we value our care workers properly? Will she set out how far the half a billion pounds will go in achieving that?
Alison McGovern
My hon. Friend is right that at the heart of the problems we have in the social care system are the way in which the workforce are looked down upon by others and the problems with low and uncertain pay in too many areas. We are cracking on with the fair pay agreement for all the reasons that I mentioned and that she knows only too well. It is about time that social care was seen as the great and fantastic career that it is.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
Clive Jones (Wokingham) (LD)
I welcome the Minister’s statement on the national care service and thank her for early sight of it.
My Liberal Democrat colleagues and I believe that everyone deserves to be able to live independently with dignity and to receive the care they need in their own home when possible. Hundreds of thousands of people are desperately waiting for the care they need and 13,000 people every day are left stranded in hospital beds, unable to leave because their care packages have not been put in place.
One in seven people over 65 now pay more than £100,000 for their care in their lifetime. Spiralling social care costs have left many councils, such as my own in Wokingham, struggling to fulfil other basic services that residents want to see. Social care services are in crisis and have been for too long. That has been recognised for many years by Ed Davey, the leader of the Liberal Democrats and a carer himself.
Madam Deputy Speaker
Order. The hon. Gentleman will know that he must refer to his party leader by his constituency, not his name.
Clive Jones
Apologies for that, Madam Deputy Speaker.
We are pleased that the Prime Minister has recognised from his own experience that social care needs fixing. The Liberal Democrats are keen to work on a cross-party basis to fix social care. Failure to act on social care would be a catastrophe for families, for the NHS and for local services.
The Liberal Democrats have set the Government three tests for the social care reforms. First, they must put family carers front and centre, with guaranteed rights for every carer, and replace the broken carer’s allowance system. Secondly, the reforms must include a universal safety net of care, including free personal care. Thirdly, the Government must protect people from catastrophic costs so that family finances are not decimated and people do not have to lose the family home.
I am pleased that the Prime Minister committed yesterday to arranging another round of cross-party talks to fix social care. The Liberal Democrats will engage in those discussions and we urge others in the House to do the same.
Alison McGovern
The House will have heard the interchange between the leader of the Liberal Democrats and the Prime Minister yesterday. I thank the hon. Gentleman for pointing out the rather extreme impact of this situation on the NHS. We all have a choice; we cannot leave it as it is.
Ashley Dalton (West Lancashire) (Lab)
This House knows that in recent months, the issue of end-of-life care has been at the forefront of our discussions and debate. Will the Minister tell us how the national care service will dovetail with end-of-life care and support families and those at the end of their lives?
Alison McGovern
I thank my hon. Friend for all she did as a Health Minister and for raising that extremely important question. It is an often overlooked fact that in end-of-life care, the members of staff who might see a person and their family the most will be social care staff. If we cannot get the NHS working together with social care for people when they are dying, we will not be able to do it at any time. That is a priority for the work that we can do before the Casey review, and I will happily meet my hon. Friend to discuss that further, if she would like.
Sir Edward Leigh (Gainsborough) (Con)
The average cost of a home in the Gainsborough constituency is just £204,000. Typically, someone spends three years in a care home in their lifetime, which will cost them £150,000. Everything over £23,000—the upper capital limit—is taken. All over the country that really upsets people who have contributed for a lifetime, and it is a real issue outside London and the south-east, which have much higher house prices. If the Minister is to abolish the triple lock and change it to a double lock, which most commentators think is now inevitable, will she look at this issue and either raise the upper capital limit so people keep more of their money or have a cap on lifetime contributions, which was the policy of the last Government?
Alison McGovern
The point raised by the Father of the House is an important one, and it is one for the further discussions that we will have next summer once the Casey commission has reported. The steps that I wish to take in the immediate weeks and months are focused on improving what we can within the care system now. None the less, he raises an important point.
Jen Craft (Thurrock) (Lab)
I welcome the statement, and I hope that the national care service affords an opportunity to develop a sufficient road map to community support for the more than 3,000 people with a learning disability and autism who are currently locked away in secure mental health units that are inappropriate and, in some cases, actively harmful. That commitment was given to me at the Dispatch Box nearly a year ago by the Minister’s predecessor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Aberafan Maesteg (Stephen Kinnock). I would be grateful if the Minister could meet with me, Mencap and those campaigning to bring these people home from hospital.
Alison McGovern
I will, of course, meet my hon. Friend. She will know that I am also the Minister for Mental Health, so across those two responsibilities, I will happily work with her to fulfil that commitment.
Vikki Slade (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (LD)
For the last year, I have been campaigning for Richard’s law after Louise and Richard were robbed by a care worker in their own home in Dorset. The law would ensure that all care workers are registered with the Disclosure and Barring Service, have minimum levels of training and, most importantly, are on a single national carers register. That is supported by Visiting Angels and the National Care Association, as it will allow carers to move employers more easily, reduce employers’ costs and professionalise the sector. Will the Minister support that?
Alison McGovern
The hon. Lady rightly raises an important issue. One of the interim recommendations of the Casey review was that we create a national safeguarding board. If the hon. Lady wants to send me the details of her proposal, I will happily raise it with the chief social worker.
Anna Dixon (Shipley) (Lab)
I declare an interest as the chair of the all-party parliamentary group on carers. The Minister sadly knows from personal experience the challenges that family members face in trying to secure care and support for our loved ones, and it is even more distressing when they are close to the end of their life. Will she outline how the Government will ensure that the national care service gives peace of mind to families and carers that care and support will be there when they need it, regardless of their finances or where they live?
Alison McGovern
My hon. Friend’s question gives me the opportunity to thank her for all the work that she does in Parliament to raise the issues that relate to family carers in the care system. She mentions that, sadly, I have recent experience of the social care system, from when my mum died in July. I can only say that the system that we will try to achieve is one that takes burdens off the shoulders of people at that time and not the current one where, unfortunately, the complexities only add to the distress.
Edward Argar (Melton and Syston) (Con)
May I associate myself with the Minister’s remarks about the amazing work done by care workers day in, day out across our country? Labour Governments, Conservative Governments and Governments with Liberal Democrats in them have all been unable to find a way to implement significant changes for the future of social care. That is not, I suspect, from a lack of desire, but due to the complexities of doing so and of securing a degree of meaningful agreement across the parties in this House. Will the Minister therefore confirm that the contours of what the cross-party discussions and the Casey commission can consider and potentially conclude are in no way predetermined by the Prime Minister’s announcement?
Alison McGovern
The right hon. Gentleman was a Minister in the Department of Health and Social Care; he understands the challenges very well, and was an excellent and courteous Minister. The Prime Minister set out his position, which is his long-standing view. He acknowledged at Prime Minister’s questions, and on other occasions, the ups and downs of the debate we have all been through. We all want to try to work across parties to get to a better place on this. I can only refer the right hon. Gentleman to the remarks that the Prime Minister made at PMQs yesterday about how determined he is to find cross-party agreement.
Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)
I also declare an interest as a member of the trade union Unison. I thank the Minister for her statement and welcome her and the PM’s comments and commitment to a national care service, which has the potential to make a big difference to residents and carers in my constituency. I am really interested in the role of the unpaid carers champion. This is not me putting in a pitch for the job, but how will this role ensure that the voices of carers and young carers—she will know I have a passion for supporting them—are heard as part of this conversation?
Alison McGovern
I know that the only job my hon. Friend ever wants is to be the Member of Parliament for Harlow—it is such a great job. As we build the national care service, it is important that the voice of family carers and unpaid carers is heard loud and clear. They have a specific viewpoint on some of the changes that we are trying to achieve. Once we have made the announcement, whoever is appointed will work very closely with him, particularly on young carers.
Alison Bennett (Mid Sussex) (LD)
I appreciate being called at this point, because at 1.50 pm there is a debate in Westminster Hall on support for unpaid carers; I encourage all hon. Members to join us. Does the Minister think that the national care service can be funded through efficiencies in the NHS?
Alison McGovern
I thank the hon. Lady not just for her question, but for seeking the debate in Westminster Hall. I apologise to her for not replying to it myself, but there is a sort of time clash going on. My very good friend, the Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, my hon. Friend the Member for Bury North (Mr Frith), will respond to her.
The argument I was making in my statement was that unless we are prepared to grapple with the issue of social care properly, we will pay for the cost of failure, most especially in what we are seeing in the NHS. I feel sure that this is the right thing to do for the country financially, as well as in terms of ensuring that people can live very good lives into old age.
Nadia Whittome (Nottingham East) (Lab)
I very much welcome the Minister’s statement, and I am glad that the Prime Minister has already committed to a national care service that is free at the point of use—a vital principle that mirrors our NHS. Does the Minister agree that one of the key problems in our current system is our reliance on private providers? Will she explore how we can make the new national care service publicly run, with people who receive care, care workers and unpaid carers co-producing that system?
Alison McGovern
The system we have is not working. It is far too fragmented, and I have a lot of concerns about the situation faced by the workforce. Hon. Members will have noticed, yesterday, that the Prime Minister responded to a question regarding the role of co-ops in the future of social care. I am interested in all ideas that Members have on how we get the best possible mix of organisations involved in the national care system.
Dr Andrew Murrison (South West Wiltshire) (Con)
The trauma of care that the Minister refers to includes keeping frail elderly people in acute hospital units well beyond their date of expected discharge. That is dreadful for them. It means that they are likely to succumb to hospital-acquired infections and the various other things that are attendant on hospital stays. It means that they are not in homely settings in the community, which is where they need to be and where their families want them to be—and at a quarter of the cost of keeping them in an acute hospital unit. Will the national care service incorporate savings that can be made through our NHS by getting people the care that they need—that is to say, care in the community rather than in busy acute hospital beds?
Alison McGovern
I could not have put the argument better myself. That is exactly the trauma that I am referring to. It is a terrible thing to see an older loved one in hospital, which is not a good environment for them and is likely to make them ill through infection, lose mobility or other things. Nobody wants that. As I said to the hon. Member for Mid Sussex (Alison Bennett) a moment ago, this proposal is the right thing financially, but frankly, it has to be done for quality of life reasons.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
I share the Minister’s pride; my mother turns 89 today, having dedicated her life to the NHS. I also extend that pride to the 1.6 million care workers, and believe that we could do so much more to lift their confidence in their professional skills. I welcome the Prime Minister’s extending his interest to care co-operatives, because those can empower staff and service users. Will the Minister work with the Co-op party, which has done extensive work in this area, to deliver that model?
Alison McGovern
Yes, of course, I will. May I, through my hon. Friend, wish her mum an extremely happy 89th birthday? My hon. Friend and I are both daughters of people who worked in the NHS, and nothing makes me more proud.
Adam Dance (Yeovil) (LD)
I welcome the Minister’s statement—there was a lot of good in there—but if we are not getting a national care service in this Parliament, what steps will the Government take now to ensure continuity of social care across local authority borders? One constituent’s mother moved from Dorset to a care home near her family in Somerset. They sought support from the council, because their personal funds were running out. Sadly, the constituent’s mother passed away before the complex dispute over which council should pay was ever resolved.
Alison McGovern
I thank the hon. Gentleman for bringing that point forward. We have a lot of work to do with our colleagues in local government to get the system right. Helpfully, my previous job was Minister for Local Government, so I am aware of some of the issues. If the hon. Gentleman sends me a note with that border issue, I will happily look into it. That sounds like the sort of thing that is probably happening in loads of places.
Liz Twist (Blaydon and Consett) (Lab)
I declare my interest as co-chair of the Unison group of Labour MPs and as a unison member. I thank the Minister for the work that she is doing on workforce issues, but many unpaid carers struggle to balance their caring responsibilities with paid employment, with consequences for their household finances and future pensions; indeed, many have to give up work because they cannot balance them. What steps are the Government taking to ensure that carers get the support they need to stay in work if they wish to do so?
Alison McGovern
I thank my hon. Friend for her contribution and, through her, thank all the Unison group MPs and Unison for their input on the issue. The important matter she raises is one of the reasons we are going to appoint a champion for unpaid family carers. We have talked about all the other financial impacts of this failure, but there is also the economic impact on the labour force of people giving up work to care for an older loved one. We have to take that impact into consideration as we build the new national care service.
Robert Jenrick (Newark) (Reform)
Instead of cutting foreign aid, net zero subsidies or benefits for migrants, the Government have chosen to cut the state pension to pay for their care system, but most experts agree that that does not even touch the sides of the problem: there is an £18 billion to £40 billion black hole. Will the Minister accept that, to pay for this, taxes are going to have to rise a lot? People are very worried, so will she use this opportunity to rule out the death tax, in which the Government would go after people’s homes—their nest eggs—at the end of their lives?
Alison McGovern
I do not accept what the right hon. Gentleman has just said, and I do not agree with it either.
Clive Efford (Eltham and Chislehurst) (Lab)
I very much welcome the statement and any move towards a national care service, but my hon. Friend knows as much as I do that people often experience a clash of bureaucracies, which leads to a slowdown in the delivery of care or care packages. People are stuck in hospitals for a variety of reasons, but for many it is because that clash cannot be resolved to move them from hospital in a timely fashion. We cannot wait for that to be resolved; we need to resolve it now. Can she reassure me that she is working on that, because if we can solve that, we can solve large parts of the problem in this Parliament and not have to wait for the next?
Alison McGovern
My hon. Friend makes exactly the argument as to why we have to take steps now to improve the system. In my statement, I mentioned the increase in the number of organisations using digital care records to help smooth the system, but it also takes the working together of NHS organisations, local authorities and care companies. That is happening in some places. The problem is it is not happening everywhere, and he is absolutely spot on that we have to take steps now.
Ian Sollom (St Neots and Mid Cambridgeshire) (LD)
My constituent Maxwell has spinal muscular atrophy and needs a significant amount of personal care. He has just started a graduate job, but because of the frozen £23,250 capital limit, any savings he builds up go on care charges, so he cannot save a deposit for a home or for the safety net that his disability demands. The right hon. Member for East Hampshire (Damian Hinds) said that we assume this to be the case, but will the Minister confirm that free personal care will be included for working-age disabled adults such as Maxwell? Until it arrives, would she unfreeze and raise the capital limit so that we are not placing a limit on his aspiration?
Alison McGovern
I thank the hon. Member for raising his constituent’s situation. If he would like to send me the details, I will happily look into it and formally reply to him and his constituent. Baroness Casey’s commission is working on recommendations for fixing social care for everyone who needs it, including working-age adults, but I would just acknowledge that some of the challenges are different, so we need to take that into account as we move forward to the future system.
Matt Rodda (Reading Central) (Lab)
I declare an interest, as I have a close relative working in the care sector. I welcome the Minister’s statement on this important matter. Could she say more about how she and the Department plan to build consensus across the wider community and with stakeholders, as well as with political parties?
Alison McGovern
I thank my hon. Friend for his question and thank whichever of his relatives is working hard in social care. I have been lucky to be in touch with a wide number of organisations. We had an opening meeting in the Department with lots of organisations a month or so ago, and there is a lot of expertise out there. This issue is seen differently by those involved in the different parts, and also because of the different conditions and experiences that people have. I feel positive about that work so far. Many people have engaged with the Casey commission and, I am sure, will do so going forward.
Dr Ellie Chowns (North Herefordshire) (Green)
I welcome the statement from the Minister, as I am sure will many people in North Herefordshire—people who draw on care and people who provide care, both paid and unpaid. Does the Minister agree that we need to end the lottery of care—the postcode lottery of care being provided in different ways in different places, the life lottery of people’s access to care being partly determined by their circumstances, and the lottery of whether someone ends up having catastrophic care costs at the end of their life and potentially losing their life savings? Can we agree that we need to ensure that care is locally provided but nationally funded, and will she lobby her colleague the Chancellor to include fair taxation of wealth in the mechanisms considered to fund that?
Alison McGovern
I thank the hon. Lady for her contribution. She makes a good argument, which I think we all see, about how disjointed and fragmented the system is. [Interruption.] The shadow Health Secretary is trying to help me out by explaining that her question was probably slightly out of scope of my policy responsibilities, but I will certainly mention to the Chancellor, if I bump into him, that she had a view that she would like to share with him.
Mr Clive Betts (Sheffield South East) (Lab)
I very much welcome my hon. Friend’s statement. We have talked about this issue for so many years, and it is time that we got on with it and tried to get cross-party agreement. While we are waiting for the Casey report—I know Louise from old, and she will be robust and independent in what she recommends—is it the idea that we will set out a national framework, where Government lay down standards and hopefully the funding, and then the service is organised at a local level by local authorities, working closely with primary care, public health and local housing providers, who are often missed out in the important join-up that we have to achieve?
Alison McGovern
I thank my hon. Friend for his question and his experience in this area, which he has shared with me over many years; I appreciate it. He describes the situation well. We need a system that is much less fragmented, easier to understand and that responds to the local context. It is very different providing care in urban areas and rural areas, for example. We have to think through those issues. There are certain things, which I laid out in my statement, that we need to crack on with now, such as giving young people the chance of a job in social care, and other issues we will work through alongside local government colleagues and, as he says, housing providers, too.
David Chadwick (Brecon, Radnor and Cwm Tawe) (LD)
Those demographic statistics are alarming. In Powys, there are high average occupancy rates for nursing beds across community hospitals—91% in Llandrindod Wells and 82% in Ystradgynlais—yet Powys teaching health board is consulting on potentially cutting the number of community hospital beds from 160 to 60. Does the Minister agree that community hospital beds play a vital role in the care system, and does she share my concern that if those beds were cut, it would just mean that more elderly residents from Wales are left stranded in English hospitals?
Alison McGovern
I am sure the health board that covers the hon. Member’s constituency will have heard his opinion, which was strongly given. We need to make the system work better, and I am sure that the board will want to reply to him directly.
Darren Paffey (Southampton Itchen) (Lab)
I join my hon. Friend in praising care workers up and down the country, and I pay particular tribute to those who gave such excellent care to both my parents in their final years. From day one as an MP, my constituents have come to me with increasingly distressing stories of what is happening when things go wrong, so I really welcome the long-term statement to put it right. While we wait for Baroness Casey, can my hon. Friend assure us that there is a plan to do the most urgent improvements starting now?
Alison McGovern
Yes, I can assure my hon. Friend of that. That is part of the reason for the statement today. Whether it is on workforce, improvements on technology, local authority commissioning or the initial recommendations of the Casey review on motor neurone disease, safeguarding and dementia, we are getting on with those things that are urgent and can be done now.
Ben Lake (Ceredigion Preseli) (PC)
I congratulate the Minister not only on the statement, but specifically on the creation of a national care service. It will undoubtedly have a transformational impact on so many people. Will she ensure that representatives from political parties in Wales can be included in some of the cross-party talks? Although the provision of social care in Wales is a devolved responsibility, there are important considerations, including the arrangements for cross-border packages and matters of funding, that are perhaps best understood and addressed at an early stage.
Alison McGovern
Let me say “diolch” to the hon. Gentleman. Yes, we can definitely do what he asks; as somebody whose constituency is very close to north Wales, I understand what he means.
Neil Duncan-Jordan (Poole) (Lab)
I welcome the Government’s move towards a national care service because, as the Minister said in her statement, everybody knows that we will not fix the NHS until we fix social care. But tens of thousands of care workers currently face a change to their immigration status. We should not be changing the rules for those who are already here and making a valuable contribution to both the care sector and our wider society. Does the Minister agree?
Alison McGovern
The issue that my hon. Friend raises is rightly one for the Home Office, and I will pass on his question to the relevant Minister. I will just say that whether it is the NHS and its creation, or social care down the years, we are grateful to those people who have come to put in a shift and take care of the ones we love.
Mike Reader (Northampton South) (Lab)
Could the Minister confirm, as I think she has in previous answers, that the interface between health and social care will remain front and centre of the national care service, not only for those being discharged from hospital but for those who are in care—particularly residential care—and face challenges in accessing health services?
Alison McGovern
I am very happy to confirm that. I think we all understand how challenging and bureaucratic that border between health and care can be, and that is one of the urgent matters that I am looking at.
Jodie Gosling (Nuneaton) (Lab)
I really welcome this statement, especially the recognition of the trauma caused to families when services fail. That is why it is so important to preserve strong local services like Mary Ann Evans hospice in Nuneaton, which provides dignity in death to thousands of families at home but is currently on the breadline and in insolvency talks, with last-minute legacy donations extending the deadline from the end of this month to the end of the year. I am in talks with the integrated care board, and we are doing everything we can, but there is a fundamental problem with the funding level. What can we do to protect these fragile services now, so that we can build on them in the future?
Alison McGovern
I thank my hon. Friend and pay tribute to her for all the work she is doing with her local hospice and her community on this issue. Members across the House will understand that we have a challenge in hospice funding, which I am looking at as part of the end-of-life care work that I am doing. It sounds like she is more than on top of it with her ICB, but if I can be of any assistance to her, I would be happy to do so.
Brian Leishman (Alloa and Grangemouth) (Lab)
The creation of a national care service is in the very best socialist traditions of the Labour party. However, pensioners funding its creation through the removal of the triple lock is not, especially when we have over 2 million pensioners living in poverty. The Institute for Fiscal Studies has said that the £15 billion of savings from the removal of the triple lock is actually more like £4 billion. Making any savings is a bit of a speculative gamble, because if we see high inflation, there are potentially no savings to be made. If there is going to be a financial shortfall in providing the national care service, how will it be funded and realised?
Alison McGovern
I thank my hon. Friend for his question, and in responding to him, I would like to quote the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, who said in his statement to the House this week:
“We know that people want security in retirement and we are committed to protecting the poorest pensioners. Under our plans, pensioner poverty is set to fall.”—[Official Report, 13 October 2026; Vol. 791, c. 198.]
I hope my hon. Friend read that statement, and I hope he understands why I will respectfully disagree with him.
Richard Baker (Glenrothes and Mid Fife) (Lab)
In Scotland, our health and social care partnerships face a £500 million funding shortfall, and the SNP has failed to deliver on its commitment to establish a national care service for Scotland. As the Government take forward these vital plans for social care, will the Minister ensure that her counterparts in the Scottish Government are regularly updated on this work, so that they can learn how improvements in social care can be made effectively and encouraged to fulfil finally their pledge to provide the improved social care services that my constituents need as well?
Alison McGovern
I thank my hon. Friend for asking that very important question. When I have heard about the situation in Scotland, I have to say that it worries me, so I will happily agree to his suggestion.
Nesil Caliskan (Barking) (Lab)
As I listened with great interest to the Minister’s statement on our country’s care sector, which has persistent vacancies, I was thinking about the one in six young people in my constituency who are out of employment and not in education. With that in mind, does she agree that building a national care service means that we can improve care for older people but also create rewarding career pathways for young people in my constituency through training and better care in the care sector?
Alison McGovern
I have visited my hon. Friend’s constituency before; I know what amazing young people there are, and they deserve a better chance. Working in care can be an absolutely fantastic career. A young person who has perhaps experienced unemployment might need a bit of confidence, and being in an emotionally intelligent profession like social care can be a really great start to their career. I will happily work with her on that if she would like.
Chris Hinchliff (North East Hertfordshire) (Lab)
I thank the Minister for her powerful statement. Some 84% of care beds in England are run by private companies, and Baroness Casey has highlighted that private equity is often holding councils to ransom, so that they can extract maximum profit from the public purse. I note the Minister’s earlier answers on ownership models, but can she confirm that Labour’s national care service will put an end to the essential care of our parents and grandparents being used as a profiteering investment vehicle by private equity?
Alison McGovern
I refer my hon. Friend to the comments I made in my statement about the importance of putting people first and also to the response that the Prime Minister gave yesterday about the development of co-op organisations in the care system. I think we can make important progress on this, and I am happy to work with my hon. Friend to do that.
Lizzi Collinge (Morecambe and Lunesdale) (Lab)
I draw the House’s attention to my membership of Unison. I would also like to pay tribute to former Conservative county councillor David Westley, who I found out has recently passed away. He was the chair of Lancashire’s health and adult services scrutiny committee. I served as his deputy, and we worked together in Lancashire to try to address the problems that the Minister is trying to sort out now.
My constituency has large rural areas. Can the Minister assure me that the problems in rural care will be addressed as part of her plans?
Alison McGovern
Could I, through my hon. Friend, pay my respects to Councillor David’s family and all those who love him and miss him?
As I have said, it is important to think about this matter from the point of view of the different communities we have across England. There are challenges in rural areas, and we need to be cognisant of them as we think about what the care service looks like on the ground.
Mohammad Yasin (Bedford) (Lab)
I welcome the Government’s commitment to putting unpaid carers at the heart of a national care service, but as I heard when I visited Blue Sky Carers Support hub in Bedford recently, this must mean more than words. What concrete, properly funded commitments will the Government make to ensure that unpaid carers receive meaningful breaks, financial security and support to balance caring with work or education—particularly for young carers—so that we do not just recognise carers but really care for the caregivers?
Alison McGovern
My hon. Friend rightly raises a really important issue. We cannot think about the welfare of people who are receiving care if we are not thinking about the welfare of people caring for them. That is why we are going to appoint a champion for unpaid carers, who can be their voice as we build the new national care service, to ensure that all the issues he rightly raises are considered in this process.
Alistair Strathern (Hitchin) (Lab)
I think most of us or our friends and family will be familiar with the really personal, emotional, financial and, frankly, human cost of our broken system. It is a cost resulting from successive generations of politicians’ failure to face into the difficult choices and act, and I hold my own party as accountable as any other in that. I thank the Minister and the Prime Minister for not just stepping up on this but facing into some of the difficult choices, including the triple lock adjustment, that will be needed to fund it. My constituents tell me they will be perfectly happy to pay more and to make sacrifices if they can be confident they will be getting the care they need when they grow older. Will the Minister assure my constituents that, over the next Parliament, every penny we are saving through that triple lock adjustment will be invested in ensuring that we have the care service my constituents deserve?
Alison McGovern
I thank my hon. Friend for an insightful and important question and for the work he does to ensure that his constituents’ views are put forward here. What matters in order to fulfil the test that he sets for the national care service is to be really clear on outcomes. A number of Members have mentioned the travesty of people staying in hospital longer than they need to, and how traumatic it is when we experience a loved one not being cared for in the way that we would wish towards the end of their life. We all have to be clear about the outcomes that we want to see from this new service, and then we will be able to meet the test his constituents set.
Samantha Niblett (South Derbyshire) (Lab)
The reason I joined the Labour party—in my 30s, quite late—was the national health service and the welfare state, two incredibly important institutions in this country that look after people at their most vulnerable. After today, the national care service would be the third reason why I would join the Labour party. I mention that because in my South Derbyshire constituency, we saw the closure of the most beloved care home, Castle Court care home in Gresley, by the Reform-led county council. It was galling this week to see a couple of Reform county councillors celebrating the fact that the care home has been bought by a private company—hurrah for it coming in to save the day, by the way—when Reform was responsible for closing it, putting staff out of a job and residents out of a home. Does the Minister agree that it is only ever Labour Governments who create the institutions that look after people when they need help the most?
Alison McGovern
I thank my hon. Friend for that question, and through her, I thank all the people who campaigned for good care in her constituency. She tempts me; I am trying to be non-partisan today, and she is sparking my inner party-political fire. All of us, and all parties, can make a contribution to getting this right. We are rightly proud of the role of the Labour party in founding the NHS, and I want us to be just as proud of what we do to create the national care service from this point on.
Andrew Pakes (Peterborough) (Lab/Co-op)
I refer Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests; I am a member of the GMB. I welcome today’s statement, and thank the Minister for grasping the issue of a national care service. For too many of my constituents, it has been a national profit service, with many of the big care providers owned or backed by private venture capital. All of us MPs will recognise from casework and from speaking to constituents that people feel that they have no voice when it comes to the care system, be they people in care, their families, or our amazing and brilliant care workers, who do not get listened to enough in the system. The Prime Minister yesterday spoke about his father, and gave a powerful commitment that co-operation and co-operative values will be integral to how we build a service that we can be proud of. Will my hon. Friend give a commitment that the likes of the Co-operative party, but also Co-operatives UK and brilliant care co-operatives, will be fully involved in the Department’s work as we think about the diversity of provision that we need?
Alison McGovern
I thank my hon. Friend for that contribution. He is absolutely right: people feel as if the current system is a fog, at best. It is totally fractured, and it is too hard to navigate for people already dealing with some of life’s biggest challenges. Those Co-op values are an important factor in our thinking as we move forward with the national care service. He mentioned the Prime Minister’s comments yesterday; I am glad to confirm that those are exactly the values that we want to bring to this discussion. We are trying to ensure that people are empowered and have their voices heard, and that they work together for the good of those who need care.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
I thank the Minister for her statement.
Highways (Financing) Bill
(1 day, 9 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
16:31 - The House divided: - Ayes: 76 / Noes: 231 - Question accordingly negatived.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
The reasoned amendment in the name of Mr Richard Holden has been selected.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Justin Madders)
I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
I realise that the Bill may seem rather dry at first glance, as it primarily covers how we finance major road building. Financial frameworks, licences and regulators might not get the hearts of the public—or, dare I say, even of hon. Members—racing, so I hope the House will allow me to start with why all this matters, not just for the future of this Government’s second largest infrastructure asset, but for the future of the country. Members from across the House will, I am sure, know the importance of the strategic road network—4,500 miles of highways that frankly punch above their weight. It represents less than 3% of our road network by length, and carries a third of motor vehicle miles and two thirds of lorry miles. If trade is the lifeblood of our economy, the strategic network represents our national arteries, transporting almost all the goods that we rely on for our way of life. Indeed, it does even more, by unlocking house building, connecting people with opportunity, and underpinning the integrated transport network that we want to build.
Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con)
The Minister mentioned roads unlocking house building. Labour wants to build 100,000 houses in south Essex, from Grays to Shoeburyness, so why did it cancel the widening of the A12 some months ago? Last week, it cancelled upgrades to the A127, too. It makes no sense to build all those houses, but if we are going to do that, it is insane to cancel the road upgrades that we need to accommodate that building. Why did Labour do that? None of this is joined up, is it?
Justin Madders
I will happily address why certain schemes have been cancelled. It is because the Conservative party put far more schemes into the programme than it put in funding for, so any understandable frustration ought to be directed at the right hon. Gentleman’s colleagues. Much of the strategic network is over 45 years old.
Mr Francois
I am sorry, but the Minister cannot get away with that. Labour cancelled the widening of the A12, which had been planned for years, and it cancelled the upgrades to the A127. Please answer my question. How can Labour propose building 100,000 houses while cancelling strategic road programmes? It does not make sense.
Justin Madders
The bottom line is that the previous Government committed to far more schemes than there was funding for, so we had to evaluate which were the least value for money and the least advanced. It is nothing more than that. The right hon. Member may be frustrated, but perhaps the previous Government should not have made promises that could not be delivered.
Demand will only go in one direction. Road vehicle mileage is set to rise on the strategic road network by 12% over the nine years to 2035. Climate change continues to bare its teeth across our transport infrastructure, and our strategic roads are no exception. All those challenges bear down on a network that holds up our economy every day. That is why I am proud that the Government published the third road investment strategy earlier this year. It committed not only £27 billion to future-proofing our roads, and to resurfacing a quarter of our entire network, but to three major enhancement schemes in the north of England, on which it will work even closer with local leaders. It proved to MPs like me that road investment can address regional inequalities, and is compatible with our promise of greater devolution. When we talk about growth and power in every postcode, that is exactly what we mean.
That is the context in which I present the Bill. I have mentioned what we have already delivered, but in truth, much more needs to be done. Delivering the roads this country needs to connect our ports, our major cities and our communities requires substantial investment over many years, and across several Parliaments. Public investment will, of course, continue to play a vital role, but we can go further when private investment is harnessed to meet public goals. When Government and the private sector come together in partnership, and when we balance certainty for private investors with safeguards for the public interest, we give ourselves more tools to build the modern infrastructure that Britain needs. The Bill creates such a tool, and does so in two ways.
Dr Peter Prinsley (Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket) (Lab)
I welcome the measures in the Bill to invest in our road system, but will the Minister comment on the technological advances to vehicles over the next decades? Most vehicles will eventually become self-driving. That will mean much less congestion, and vehicles will communicate with each other, so there will be much simpler junctions and fewer accidents. What account are the Government taking of the technical changes to vehicles?
Justin Madders
We are working on projections and what we know about the road network now, and overcapacity at Dartford in particular needs to be addressed. On whether automated vehicles reduce congestion, we need to see what happens in practice.
The regulated asset base model will be applied to trunk roads in England. That model is not new—it was used to fund the Thames tideway tunnel and Sizewell C—but this is the first time it will be used on a road network. For our roads, it starts by granting a licence for a specific highway project to a private investor. The framework for that licence is set in this Parliament. The framework starts with construction and goes through to operation and maintenance. Any infrastructure project under this model will therefore start as it should, with a sound legal and regulatory foundation.
The Office of Rail and Road will then act as the independent economic regulator. It will have a wide range of powers in the public interest, including monitoring performance, obtaining information, issuing penalties and, if necessary, taking enforcement action and revoking a licence. These public interest safeguards are vital and will never be compromised. There can also be no disparity between the operation of a privately funded highway and one managed by National Highways, so I can assure the House that the Bill means that roads operated under the new licensing regime can be held to the same standards as the rest of the strategic road network. Even when difficulties arise, the framework ensures that road users are protected and there is continuity of service on the network.
Finally, the Bill allows a private operator to make a regulated return on their investment. Any charges or tolls will be levied under strict conditions set out by the Office of Rail and Road, which will be required to consider the interests of road users. Let me be crystal clear: the Bill is not and will never be national road pricing by the back door, and it is not and will never be a way to charge motorists across the wider network. The provisions in the Bill apply only to roads brought in under the financial and legal framework that we are debating today.
Let me be clear: that framework is not open ended. Licences may only be issued for new road projects, capacity enhancing improvements or the continued operation of a previously licensed road, and any road specified in a licence must be a trunk road in England. This is about strategically important routes, not minor improvements to the road network. Government policy is that tolling will normally be used only for costly river and estuarial crossings, and nothing in the Bill is set to change that.
I will now turn to the second major feature of the Bill. Some of the legislation governing toll collection dates back to the 18th century. It is high time that was updated, so that we can unleash the benefits of modern technology on our roads. Many of us have at some point experienced long queues at toll booths. It adds unnecessary delay to journeys, and drivers will rightly wonder when regulations will catch up with technology. Free-flowing tolling systems do not require vehicles to stop at traditional booths, and by allowing payment after use, they ease congestion and shorten journey times. The Bill does not mandate a certain approach to toll collection, but simply allows new technologies to be adopted and creates a modern statutory framework for enforcement practices. I have little doubt that drivers will welcome measures that can remove friction from their journeys.
It is no secret that our desire to push forward with this legislation stems from the lower Thames crossing. That crossing will almost double road capacity across the Thames to the east of London. It will improve journey times and it will tackle chronic congestion at Dartford, which is bursting at the seams. Its 2.6-mile dual tunnels under the Thames will be the longest road tunnels in the country, and the largest in Europe by diameter, and it will set the standard for carbon-neutral construction. In short, it is exactly the sort of ambitious and world-leading infrastructure project that Britain should be building.
We have been clear that the regulated asset base model is our preferred financial approach for the lower Thames crossing, but the Bill is not about the lower Thames crossing’s design, nor does it grant development consent. That work has already been done. It simply creates the financial framework that can deliver the lower Thames crossing, as well as appropriate future road projects.
I finish by reminding colleagues what lies at the heart of the Bill: recognition that too many people, in too many places, remain held back by poor connectivity, and a recognition that each congested road and every delayed journey stifle productivity. The Bill does not ask the House to choose between public and private finance as a matter of ideology, but it puts another tool at our disposal for delivering the infrastructure that Britain needs. This financial model will not be used in every case, but it does set out one practical approach, guided by a financial framework set by Government. There will be a compliance regime enforced by an independent regulator. Private capital is provided by investors, and public safeguards are protected at every stage. That is the balanced model that this Bill will deliver, and I commend it to the House.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
I call the Shadow Secretary of State.
Mr Richard Holden (Basildon and Billericay) (Con)
I beg to move an amendment, to leave out from “That” to the end of the Question and add:
“this House, while recognising the urgent need to deliver the Lower Thames Crossing, declines to give a Second Reading to the Highways (Financing) Bill, because it has no confidence in the Government’s ability to deliver the project on time and on budget, given its record of cancelling major road schemes across the country; believes that, without withdrawing from the Aarhus Convention, the costs of the Lower Thames Crossing, and therefore potential costs to its users under this Bill, risk spiralling further out of control; further believes the scope of the Bill should be strictly limited to financing the construction of the Lower Thames Crossing, and rejects the sweeping powers the Bill would grant Ministers to impose new road-charging schemes across England through secondary legislation; and also believes that the Government should not be permitted to introduce additional road-charging schemes across England without parliamentary approval and corresponding reductions in fuel duty to offset those charges.”
We are here today primarily to debate the measures to deliver the lower Thames crossing, an infrastructure project that, I think it is right to say, has support from Members across the House. It will deliver the jobs, growth and economic opportunities that local communities in the region, including my own constituency of Basildon and Billericay, are crying out for. However, I am afraid that that is not all that we are here to debate. Labour could have brought a project-specific piece of legislation to the House that would get this project over the line, but instead we are here partially to challenge this Labour Government as they open the door to a road charging scheme to hammer motorists.
The Minister has said that the Bill concerns only existing big toll roads, but we say that that is obviously not the case. In fact, motorists all over the country could be forced to stomach another blow to their wallets and to fork out their hard-earned cash, as the Bill’s sweeping powers mean that anything new on the road—a new smart motorway camera, perhaps, to replace one of those that currently does not work on 400 miles of our road network—can be swiftly followed up with a new toll. The Minister said that the Bill applies only to trunk roads, but clause 81 allows the Minister the “power to direct” any road to be made a trunk road, which opens up the entire road network of the country.
Sir Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)
On that point, does my right hon. Friend agree that it would be sensible for the three London bridges that are in disrepair to be designated as trunk roads, so that they could be repaired under the provisions of this legislation?
Mr Holden
My hon. Friend makes an important point. My understanding is that in relation to other legislation put forward by the Government concerning those projects, the local councils told the Government that the funding that they were putting forward under their own schemes—not including this legislation—was not suitable, particularly for the Hammersmith project. There are lots of options available, and my hon. Friend raises an important one, given the importance of those river crossings to the people of London and the wider country.
In truth, we all know that Labour does not care about motorists. If it did, the Secretary of State would be in her place. Where on earth is the Secretary of State? We are discussing legislation that will enable the biggest road infrastructure project that this country has done in decades, but where is she today? Too busy to bother about motorists.
Jen Craft (Thurrock) (Lab)
Will the right hon. Gentleman clarify where the Conservative Government were over the past 14 years when it came to building this project? People in my constituency have been on tenterhooks for years and have suffered the uncertainty of being told that it will happen, and then that it will not.
Mr Francois
As a south Essex MP, I had my first briefing on the lower Thames crossing about a decade ago. The estimated cost at that time was between £2 billion and £2.5 billion. After, I think, five rounds of consultation, partly at the behest of environmental activists, which have delayed the whole thing for years, we now have a bill of between £9 billion and £10 billion. Under the first plans, the project would have been paid for by the state, but now Government policy is that 90% of it will be paid for by the private sector. I have asked the Transport Secretary three times which banks or companies will pay for it. Does my right hon. Friend know, because she will not tell me?
Mr Holden
My right hon. Friend makes an important point. We do not yet know who will fund the project. Would the Minister like to intervene on me to say if any companies have been lined up and who is looking forward to funding this project under the proposed legislation? He does not want to at the moment, so I do not think my right hon. Friend the Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois) will be getting an answer to his question today.
Mr Holden
I have just given way several times, so let me make a little progress before I give way again.
The Secretary of State is too busy to bother about motorists until they become useful cash cows for Labour’s ballooning welfare budget, which shows no sign of changing under the new Prime Minister, no matter how many pints he poses with. The Transport Secretary could not even be bothered to mention fuel in her speech at the Labour party conference, even though diesel has just hit £2 a litre for the first time ever. To be fair, she did mention drivers once, but only to tell us that railways are the drivers of change—whatever that means.
Make no mistake: Labour does not care about Britain’s motorists, unless it is making a tax, a charge, a new fine or a new yellow box junction. Labour—its Government, its Back Benchers and its councillors—will never stop trying to fleece motorists. This Bill proves that in spades with its open-ended approach to what could happen. There are new sweeping powers in the Bill for road charging right across England, with next to no future parliamentary approval. It is not even as if the Secretary of State has been out there banging the drum for Britain’s automotive sector; otherwise, we would have seen the changes to the zero emission vehicle mandate that so many in the industry, and some Labour Back Benchers, are demanding. In fact, we have seen Labour turn the screw on this issue even further since it came to power.
We know that some Labour Ministers—such as the hon. Member for Stockton North (Chris McDonald), who is a Minister in the Department for Business, Innovation, Science and Trade—are on the side of motorists. However, the Department for Transport has shown absolutely no indication that it is on the side of Britain’s car industry or those who work in it in good jobs, often with trade union representation, up and down the country. It is not on the side of those who go out and drive for work or for leisure day after day.
What have this Government done? They have been busy merrily cooking up a story with the Treasury and pressing ahead with plans to put an extra 6p per litre on fuel in the new year. They have been busily slicing out road scheme after road scheme and road upgrade after road upgrade. So much for the road investment strategy that the Minister talks about! Under this Government, how can we have any confidence that they will deliver the scheme at all? We have just seen the A303, the Blyth relief road, the A31, the A10, the A12, the A17, the A454 and the A127 growth corridor cancelled, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois) just mentioned, as well as many more. The Government have cancelled their own growth corridor!
The Transport Secretary—although she is not here—expects us to swallow the idea that the Government will suddenly be on the side of motorists and road users with this new scheme, which opens the entire road network to potential road charging. As soon as any new enhancement is put in—it may be a central reservation enhancement—it can be opened up to potential road charging.
I read the other day, to my amazement, that National Highways has banned diesel from construction sites on the lower Thames crossing. Are this Government absolutely mad? Are they trying to keep the costs of this project down?
Mr Holden
My right hon. Friend makes a good point.
The Government have devised a new cunning plan. They are not just banning diesel—oh no; they are banning hydrotreated vegetable oil. You heard that right, Madam Deputy Speaker: they are going to wipe out vegetable oils being repurposed as diesel from the sites. The sites will have to be all electric. How much cost will they ram through on to this scheme? In the end, who will pay for that? It will not be the private company that runs the scheme; it will be everybody who crosses the Thames. That is what the Government are doing: driving in costs from day one. This is the biggest road scheme that this country has done in decades, and the Secretary of State is not even here to talk about it.
Jim Dickson
The shadow Secretary of State keeps mentioning the fact that the Secretary of State is not here. Is he aware that one of the first things she did on assuming her role was to agree the development consent order for the lower Thames crossing? The last Government failed to do that over 14 years, because they were not prepared to stand up to the environmental groups who slowed the thing down and allowed dither and delay.
Mr Holden
The last Government fought tooth and nail through the courts to deliver the scheme and get the planning consents all the way through. I think the hon. Member should take note of that. This is not something that this Government have dreamed up overnight and delivered. They are ramming costs right into the heart of the scheme, and it is his constituents who will pay for it in the years to come, because of the way in which it will be constructed.
This is neither the time nor the place for one of Baldrick’s cunning plans. Does the Minister know how much this scheme is going to cost? If not, why not? Why on earth will any private sector company look at investing in the scheme if it has an open-ended cost? The Government say that they want to deliver growth, but instead they spend their days screwing over motorists, cancelling road schemes and calling Heathrow expansion a “hypothetical” or “a matter for London”.
Labour is not a serious party intent on delivering growth. They are only fit to whack up the welfare budget and leave the rest of us to pay for it. My party has set out a clear plan to tackle some of the costs of infrastructure, including leaving the Aarhus convention, which we discussed at the Conservative party conference.
Dr Prinsley
Is the shadow Secretary of State opposed in principle to the concept of tolls for any of these projects?
Mr Holden
I thank the hon. Member—my occasional squash partner—for asking that question; he often beats me at squash. We are not opposed to tolls, per se—we have had them on the existing lower Thames crossing at Dartford for years—but we took them away on the Severn bridge, which is important for our connectivity to Wales. We are totally against opening up the entire strategic road network to charging, which is what this piece of legislation does.
Mr Francois
For the record, the first Dartford tunnel opened in 1963, under a Conservative Government, and the Queen Elizabeth II bridge at Thurrock opened in 1991, under a Conservative Government. Is not the risk that if the lower Thames crossing is 90% funded by private finance, which I am not opposed to in principle, the toll charges could be so ruinous that it will be very difficult for ordinary motorists to afford it? We would have some confidence if we knew who was going to fund the scheme, but until we know that, we are going to be worried, aren’t we?
Mr Holden
Nowhere in this legislation is there any talk of the exact price that people will have to pay to cross the river. There is no idea of who is going to build the crossing, the cost of it or how much people will have to pay to cross. Huge numbers of open-ended questions are left by this piece of legislation.
As I was saying, my party has outlined plans for how we will reduce the cost of infrastructure, including leaving the Aarhus convention, so that we can tackle the rules that allow costly or protracted legal challenges. The Minister smirks, but that is costing his Department hundreds of millions of pounds a year. If his Government pulled out of the convention, they could deliver some of the road projects that they have just cancelled. That is exactly what we should be doing. At the moment, every man and his dog can challenge the Government on any important piece of road infrastructure being built in the country—or, in Jolyon Maugham’s case, every man and his fox—and use those rules to delay projects and cost the taxpayer. Costs are capped at £5,000 for an individual and at £10,000 for a campaign group, but this situation costs the taxpayer hundreds of millions of pounds a year. That is where the hon. Member for Dartford (Jim Dickson) should look to save money for his constituents when they cross the road in the future, and it is why it took so long for this legislation to come forward—because it took so long for the planning to happen.
What plan have the Government set out? Is it for this country to be a world leader in greenwashing road building and making roads more expensive than anywhere else in the world? We have a Government run by a man whose only care for transport is whether it is in Manchester or not. I have no doubt that if the LTC was somewhere in Manchester, the Government would fall over themselves to get it built, rather than having no answers to the big questions that we have.
Daniel Francis (Bexleyheath and Crayford) (Lab)
Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr Holden
I have read the Bill. Clauses 33 and 81 could lead to road charging schemes right across the country. The Minister seems not to have read his own Bill. What safeguards are there? How much will his plans to ban diesel add to the cost of construction? Does he know? Would he like to tell us? No, he is not going to say.
The shadow Ministers, my hon. Friends the Members for Mid Buckinghamshire (Greg Smith) and for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton (Alison Griffiths), will take the Government to task on the Bill and go toe-to-toe in Committee, defending motorists against unlimited tolls and endless charges. That is why we have tabled our reasoned amendment that calls on the Government to see sense, keep costs for motorists down, get this project built and deliver the growth that we desperately need in this country.
Mike Reader (Northampton South) (Lab)
As many Members will know, I joined the industry 20 years ago as a civil engineer. Throughout my career, I have been very fortunate to work on a lot of major infrastructure projects, including the lower Thames crossing, the A303 and some of the big National Highways frameworks, such as the specialist professional and technical services framework and the regional delivery partnership—the delivery integration partner framework. I now chair the all-party parliamentary group on infrastructure, so I come at this Bill as someone who has priced and bid for major contracts and has seen what happens when the money just is not there.
However, I thought I would start my contribution to this debate with a safety moment. Members who have been around the sector will know that safety culture is absolutely critical to delivering our road network and doing so safely, and a safety moment that has always stuck with me is one from National Highways. It is about a lady who I am going to call Jane. Jane had had a busy day at National Highways; she jumped in her car, was driving home, and was involved in a very low-speed traffic collision. When she hit the car in front, her airbag went off and caused her lanyard to be forced through her chest, and she ended up in hospital. That is always a good reminder—when you leave today, if you are rushing to your car to drive home, remove your lanyard, not only for your security but for your safety.
Let me now turn to why this Bill matters to Northampton. Why is an MP for Northampton talking about a scheme in Essex and Kent? Well, Northampton sits at the heart of the logistics network: some 2,640 logistics businesses operate out of Northamptonshire, and 35,000 people in my county work in haulage and logistics. Every day, goods move between warehouses in my constituency and the channel ports, many of them crossing the Thames via Dartford, and when Dartford jams up, those costs are felt in my constituency and across the midlands. I support this Bill—I think it is the right thing to do to deal with that problem—but I agree with the Road Haulage Association and many hauliers that we must also consider the cost for freight operators. When the licensing agreements come forward, we must consider the considerable business and fuel costs that many businesses in my constituency are facing.
Planning has long been the biggest barrier to building roads. In particular, the development consent order process for the lower Thames crossing has been torturous—unfortunately, I know that at first hand. The second biggest barrier, though, has often been money. The Treasury can only fund so many projects at any one time, and every project competes for the same pot. This Bill brings in the private capital to build things that would otherwise sit in the queue. I have long argued that private finance works in this sector; when the Silvertown tunnel opened last year, it showed that modern public-private partnerships can deliver for taxpayers, and I still believe that.
However, having spoken to the Minister previously responsible and now to the current Minister, I want to be straight with this House. This is an ambitious thing that we are doing. I do not believe that the regulated asset base model is used elsewhere in the world for road infrastructure; traditionally, we see it delivered through concessions or availability-based public-private partnerships. I was initially concerned, so rather than shouting at the Department about where the money is coming from, I went out and spoke to industry. Through the Global Infrastructure Investor Association and some of the big advisers to the investment community, I spoke to investors about this project, and they said that this is actually quite an exciting opportunity, particularly because it should reduce the cost of capital. Creating a regulated return reviewed by an independent regulator should deliver cheaper finance and, importantly, more competition for that finance, so it is completely right that the Department cannot say who is funding this project yet, because we need to run the competition to get that funding in the first place. The more certainty we give to the market through a model such as this one, the better our chances of securing that finance at a much lower cost.
Mr Francois
The hon. Gentleman has obviously spent a lot of time looking into this matter, and I commend him for that. As a result of his discussions, could he estimate when we might know who the funders will be—is it another year or two? When will it be? As he has obviously spoken to the Road Haulage Association as well, what does he think the initial toll will be for a lorry going through the tunnel?
Mike Reader
I would not want to speculate on the Government’s timetable. What is important is that the Bill goes through, and then we will go through the licensing arrangements to find the right partner to deliver this project, as well as the finance, obviously. However, the delays that happened under the previous Government—the first failed development consent order, where they completely ignored the local community, and the second DCO ending up in the courts because of challenges brought forward by the environmental lobby, as my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford (Jim Dickson) said—were not dealt with, and I am really disappointed that the Opposition are playing that card now when they campaigned against the Planning and Infrastructure Act 2025, which brought forward many measures that would have solved the problems that the lower Thames crossing had.
The question of risk is another important one. A RAB model moves construction risk on to the people who are financing, building and delivering the scheme, but the treatment of risk in the delivery of a major infrastructure project can make the difference between success and failure. The question is: who holds that risk? The Competition and Markets Authority’s review of the civil engineering sector rightly identified that the transfer of risk from tier 1s, from financers, and into the supply chain can make a big difference to a project’s solvency and how it is delivered, particularly for major projects. We have to make sure that the licensing arrangements established by this Bill make provision for Government to require equitable risk management and risk treatment within the delivery of projects, as well as prompt payment through the supply chain, so that when billions of pounds of investment are involved, that money flows through quickly into the supply chain and does not get stuck at tier 1 level.
I have a couple of questions for the Minister to round off my speech—I am very grateful for his and his predecessor’s engagement on this Bill. The Secretary of State told the Transport Committee that the process for setting tolls in the first settlement period, which would answer the question asked by the right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois), would be set out as the Bill progresses. Will the Minister confirm that that is still the case? The standard licence conditions will be set by the Secretary of State without parliamentary procedure, so will the Government commit to publishing the core principles for investor returns and price reviews before any licence is granted?
The Bill puts new requirements on the Office for Rail and Road. I have had relatively good experiences with that organisation, but this is a new skill and capability that it needs to have, so what are the Government going to do to strengthen the ORR’s capability to manage these contracts effectively?
Turning to existing roads, to address the point made by the shadow Secretary of State, the Government have already confirmed in a written answer that they have no plans to use these powers to toll roads that are currently free. I welcome that, but since there is confusion, could the Minister put that question beyond doubt in his closing remarks from the Dispatch Box?
Some will say that this is a pay-per-journey model that will change Britain’s roads, but I do not believe it is. It is a way of getting the biggest schemes—the schemes that get stalled for years, if not generations—off the drawing pad and into delivery. I fully support the Bill.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
Olly Glover (Didcot and Wantage) (LD)
I start by welcoming the Minister to his place. He has been blessed with the opportunity to bring another scintillating transport Bill to this House, which has clearly excited a very large number of hon. Members.
Starting with the Minister’s comments about the lower Thames crossing, which is clearly a major reason why this legislation has been laid, he is quite right to say that there is a clear need to relieve pressure on the Dartford crossings that connect the two ends of the M25 across the Thames. However, it is interesting that we seem to be assuming that traffic growth is inevitable, which is an assumption that the Government were not quite so willing to make when they opposed passenger growth targets in the Railways Bill. I make that point purely because although we of course need to cater for future increases in road demand, there is also a lot we can do to transfer that demand—both passenger and freight—to other transport modes, particularly for long-distance traffic.
In that context, while the lower Thames crossing has merit in that it will relieve the existing Thames crossings, the Government appear to be repeating the mistake of many past Labour and Conservative Governments by seeing road building as the sole answer and neglecting rail infrastructure. The channel tunnel is one of the engineering wonders of the world, yet it continues to be under-utilised, especially for rail freight—in fact, largely the rail freight does not exist, beyond lorries going on LeShuttle or whatever it is called this week. Channel tunnel use charges are one of the barriers; another is the capabilities of the UK rail network within Kent. There are well-developed plans for upgrades to the Kent conventional rail network to accommodate W12 loading gauge freight trains, and intentions to create a freight hub served by High Speed 1 at Barking, which would benefit from acceleration.
As drafted, the Bill would also give the Government significant powers to impose road tolls and charges on major roads. Introducing a new financing model for the strategic road network, while the local roads that make up 99% of the country’s roads in terms of length are facing an £18 billion repairs backlog, is an interesting choice by the Government, but let us engage directly with that choice.
There are examples of the concept of tolls and charges working well both here and abroad. Many choose to use the M6 toll road instead of the M6 despite there being a fee to pay, because it reduces some of the “road to hell” experience that the M6 often is for many. In France, motorway tolls are common, if not universal, and many European countries use a vignette system, where a driver pays for a sticker, or a digital version of that, to go on their vehicle, which enables them to use motorways and trunk roads. The advantage is that people who want to use motorways and trunk roads pay a little bit more for those roads, but people who use their car only for very local purposes do not have to pay that cost.
Olly Glover
Not all French motorways are tolled. Certain sections of them are—often the busiest sections. I will come to what the right hon. Gentleman said about what the Bill does and does not do.
The Liberal Democrats’ position is that there needs to be close attention to the detail and scrutiny of the way in which charges and tolls—like those in Europe and on the M6, which I mentioned—are implemented. However, the Bill leaves all of those questions of operation, management, oversight and regulation of tolls and charges largely undefined; they are often relegated to secondary legislation. The Government must ensure that road users are not held to ransom by licence holders, who must be properly regulated. We have seen disastrous effects in other sectors when these things have been got wrong.
The Minister and the hon. Member for Northampton South (Mike Reader) gave good examples of how a regulated asset base approach, and indeed private finance initiatives, can be used for good, but of course there are many bad examples as well. I am not sure whether too many people believe that the water industry’s use of the regulated asset base approach has been enormously successful. We certainly need regulation of private investors and to ensure that the triggers for the special administration regime defined in the legislation are not too weak. Of course, there are also many examples of public private partnerships and private finance initiatives that have not ended well, particularly with hospitals and the London underground.
Mr Francois
The hon. Member is making a very thoughtful speech. I was recently on a private holiday in Texas, being driven by a friend. In that state, there is a number of toll roads, so people have a chip attached to the windscreen that allows them to transition from public roads, as it were, to toll roads and back again, with that chip recording what they have to pay as they go from one to the other. The technology to do this already exists—I saw it with my own eyes. We are just a bit worried that the Government might be a bit too keen to adopt it.
Olly Glover
The right hon. Gentleman is right to say that if we are to go down that road, it needs to be transparent and done in a way that gives confidence to consumers. Car drivers and road users are consumers, and we should think of them in the same way we do customers on the railway or on planes. If such a thing is to be done, it must be done with great care and thought. That is why we need to scrutinise the legislation carefully.
Ruth Cadbury (Brentford and Isleworth) (Lab)
Such schemes are hardly new: in London, we have had the congestion charge for many years now—[Interruption.] We have it elsewhere, too; drivers in and around our major cities are used to a charge they have to include in their budgets.
Olly Glover
Yes, London is another example of where some of these things are already happening, but the fact that they have been controversial at times is exactly why they need to be done with thought and, ideally, in a manner that avoids some of the interminable cultural wars that we must always have on every topic these days. Instead, they should be done with consensus and based on sound reason and analysis.
We are not satisfied that the Bill as drafted provides that transparency and accountability, so we will not take a view on it as a whole today. We hope that the Government will be more receptive to some of our ideas to improving the Bill at later Commons stages than perhaps they have been hitherto.
Daniel Francis (Bexleyheath and Crayford) (Lab)
I have listened to the debate, and I think Opposition Members have amnesia over some things that have happened over the years. The A282 Trunk Road (Dartford-Thurrock Crossing Charging Scheme) Order 2013 and the Silvertown Tunnel Order 2018 are measures that directly impact my constituents every single day, and they happened under their watch. Conservative MPs in my part of south-east London go around campaigning, saying, “How dare you increase the Silvertown charges this year?” But it was their legislation that insisted that that happened; they really do forget what happened under their watch.
I should have started by declaring that I am an officer of the all-party parliamentary group for better roads and the chair of the all-party parliamentary group for wheelchair users. I also drive a Motability vehicle on behalf of my daughter, as I will refer to later.
My constituency of Bexleyheath and Crayford sits less than 3 miles from the Dartford Crossing, and for businesses—particularly industrial businesses—in Crayford and Slade Green, it is an essential link. A number of those businesses are located around Thames Road in Crayford. Over 20 years ago, as Bexley’s then cabinet member for transport, I worked to ensure that funding was forthcoming from the then Labour Government and Transport for London to upgrade Thames Road in Crayford to a dual carriageway. Unfortunately, one part of the scheme was never completed, which leaves a pinch point at the Cray Mill railway bridge on Thames Road that carries the North Kent railway line. The road is constricted due to that single carriageway to pass through the bridge arches, and that pinch point can cause long queuing during busy periods. I will continue to raise that matter with both my local authority and the Government.
Similarly, a couple of miles down the road in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford (Jim Dickson) at the Littlebrook interchange, there are further delays for my constituents as vehicles approach the Dartford tunnel to travel north across the Thames. Those issues are resolvable through engineering, but the congestion at Dartford each day is a lot harder to resolve. The delivery of the lower Thames crossing will reduce the number of vehicles—particularly lorries that have crossed the channel and need to cross the Thames—and will therefore relieve that congestion. I warmly welcome that the lower Thames crossing will double road capacity east of Crayford.
For my businesses, the lower Thames crossing will deliver reduced costs and opportunities to grow. I am amazed that later today the Conservatives will vote on a reasoned amendment calling for the Bill not to progress, as that would leave the scheme without a funding mechanism. This afternoon, the Conservatives will actively try to stop a Bill that supports growth and investment for businesses in my constituency and across south-east London and the Thames estuary. I say to Conservative Members that if they have concerns, the time to try amendments is in Bill Committee and on Report, rather than trying to kill the Bill in its entirety this afternoon.
As the Bill progresses, issues will need to be looked at. I know that my constituents and businesses would want us to look at mechanisms in clauses 7, 8, 24, 25 and 26 to ensure consistent tolling arrangements between the lower Thames crossing and those existing ones at the Dartford crossing. In particular—I am afraid this is a mouthful—schedule 3 to the A282 Trunk Road (Dartford-Thurrock Crossing Charging Scheme) Order 2013, which was passed under the previous Government, outlines that a vehicle exempt from vehicle excise duty due to carrying disabled people does not pay the toll. That normally relates to Motability vehicles. I am clear that we need to ensure consistency in the legislation for both the Dartford and lower Thames crossings for Motability users.
We also need to look into the detail of clauses 33, 87 and 92 as the Bill progresses in order to protect consistency and the current tolling arrangements. Clauses 87 and 92 allow arrangements that would see the removal of toll booths at other toll roads and crossings, such as the M6 toll or the Mersey tunnel. I warmly welcome that, as it would relieve congestion. As the hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage (Olly Glover) said, these removals are happening more and more in France. I had a moment of panic this year, when I was on a toll road without a toll booth, and I realised I had not paid. That is happening more and more, and there are lessons that we need to learn from our French counterparts on this matter.
Relieving congestion is of real benefit to business. The Bill is not all we need, but it can be a catalyst for beginning to look at the interoperability of toll systems. Currently, a business in Crayford that wants to cross at Dartford, then use the M6 toll and then maybe use another toll somewhere else, will have to set up several accounts across different toll roads. We have to look at the cost for businesses, including the amount of work in their internal accounting systems. We must look at the interoperability arrangements, both for businesses and for disabled people. At the moment, people need a separate Motability account on every single toll road. Dartford and Silvertown are free, but people have to register at Silvertown and do not have to register at Dartford. For the M6 toll and the Mersey tunnel, people have to register and pay an annual charge. It is hugely confusing for disabled people that different arrangements exist at each toll road.
I warmly encourage the Government to work on interoperability, both for business and for disabled people. I know that conversations are already being had between the operators of the Dartford crossing and the M6 toll road about interoperability, bringing those systems into one arrangement and encouraging that across all toll systems in the country. I am sure that businesses in Bexleyheath and Crayford would welcome those toll roads and crossings being brought together into one system, as would Motability users.
I support the Bill. It will bring benefits for my constituents through the delivery of the lower Thames crossing, and I hope it will start the conversation on interoperability, which will support Motability customers and businesses, reducing complexity for them and helping to encourage growth in our economy. I warmly welcome the Bill, and I look forward to hearing the Minister’s comments.
Sir Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford (Daniel Francis). The different varieties of charges and how they are enforced is a problem not just for people with disabilities, but for general motorists. As I understand it, almost half of the income from the current Dart charge is from penalties. That income is almost as great as the income from the charge itself. It shows the level of confusion that is caused to those who use that crossing.
I had the privilege of being the duty Minister in October 1991, when the Queen Elizabeth II bridge was opened by Her late Majesty. That was an occasion that I will never forget, with fly-pasts and the QE2 underneath the bridge. It was a great celebration of private enterprise at its best, because Members may recall that that bridge was built in only three years and two months. It cost £120 million and was delivered on time and to budget. The way it was financed was set out in the Dartford-Thurrock Crossing Act 1988. In responding to this debate, I hope that the Minister will explain why a similar proposal is not being applied to the lower Thames crossing.
I checked out the remarks that I made as the Minister when the bridge opened in 1991, 35 years ago this month. In those remarks, I made reference to the fact that we were working on the lower Thames crossing. We recognised 35 years ago that there would be a need for an additional lower Thames crossing. The idea then was that the income from the tolls on the Dartford crossing would eventually be used to help fund the lower Thames crossing.
I am supportive of my party’s reasoned amendment, because it shows a certain scepticism about all these promises that are made. We should recall that, at the time of the opening of the QEII bridge, I promised—it was a repeat of a promise that had been given by a previous Conservative Minister—that the tolls would cease to be payable once the costs of the bridge had been paid for. The legislation provided that there was a maximum period of 20 years through which the tolls could be paid in order to fund the bridge.
In the end, I think the period of the tolls should have been about 12 years, because the bridge should have been paid for by then. There was then an extension of one year for tolls in order to ensure that we had sufficient income to pay for the ongoing repairs and maintenance costs. That should have been the end of the financial burden on motorists using that crossing. Of course it was not, because then the Treasury got involved and said, “No, we need to keep the income coming in from the crossing. How do we justify that?” Well, the justification was that by continuing to have tolls on the crossing, we would be able to fund the lower Thames crossing.
That continued for a bit of time, and then the Labour Government decided that they did not want to have the income from the tolls dedicated to a future road project across the Thames, and that the money would go into general taxation; we lost the allocated resources that should have been there to fund the lower Thames crossing, and the money that continues to be paid by those who use the Dartford crossing just goes into general taxation. Is it any surprise that people are sceptical about promises that are made when legislation like this Bill is being debated?
The Minister says that the Bill will not be used as a vehicle for toll roads across the country. Frankly, from my own perspective, I once argued that the best way for us to promote important highway infrastructure in this country is by building roads for prosperity. “Roads for Prosperity” was the title of a 1990 roads White Paper that led to an enormous expansion of our road network, which I was lucky enough to be involved in during my time as the Roads Minister.
Mr Francois
My hon. Friend brings valuable ministerial experience to the House. I think it is fair to say that the lower Thames crossing has a very long and checkered history, just as HS2 has a very long and checkered history—in both cases, under Governments of different colours—but he is absolutely right: in south Essex, the scepticism about future tolls on the lower Thames crossing is largely based on the fact that the tolls on the QEII bridge are still in operation.
Sir Christopher Chope
I thank my right hon. Friend for that observation. That is why we need to be very sceptical about what the Government are proposing.
Let us look at the issue of the lower Thames crossing. I read that it is going to cost £10 billion, and people will ask how we are going to raise that money. It seems to me that it will not be difficult to get the capital from the private sector, if a return can be obtained on that capital. Indeed, when Sir Nigel Broackes, who was the boss of Trafalgar House, was bidding for the Dartford crossing, he obtained the capital from the Bank of America. I do not think there is any doubt that the money will be forthcoming, but what will be the cost of the whole project? Will it have a finite cost of, say, £10 billion? If so, over how long a period will the Government allow the operator and the construction vehicle to have that paid back? Will the tolls be designed to pay back the cost of the tunnel within 20 years, 30 years or 50 years? The answer to that question will determine the level of the tolls. Are they going to be affordable? My view is that it is reasonable that this infrastructure be paid for by the people who will use it. I do not have a quarrel with that.
Ruth Cadbury
It is been interesting to listen to the former Minister, who has had a distinguished career. I cannot speak about the former funding of the Dartford crossing, but does he not recognise that under this RAB model, which is overseen by the Office of Rail and Road, as are other RAB projects, funding is in effect hypothecated to the scheme? That is clear and transparent, unlike the situation that he mentioned, in which drivers did not know whether the funding that they provided was being merged with general taxation income. On how long this will last, surely that depends on the risk, and the length of time for which investors are prepared to take on the licence, when they bid to Government.
Sir Christopher Chope
I hear what the hon. Lady says, but the question I am asking is: why can we not have dedicated legislation for the lower Thames crossing, as we did for the Dartford-Thurrock crossing? In the primary legislation that went through this House, it was specified that there should be tolls only for the length of time it took to repay the costs of construction. Subsequent Governments changed that in the way that I have described, because any legislation can obviously be changed by a subsequent Parliament.
Ruth Cadbury
I appreciate the hon. Member’s response, but as this Bill makes clear, the funding through the RAB model of the lower Thames crossing and other schemes is not only for construction, but for ongoing maintenance, necessary improvements and so on. It is a long-term scheme, and is not merely for the cost of the construction.
Sir Christopher Chope
I understand that, and one of my concerns is that we may find that the tolls continue far into the distant future, when there will no longer be a need for tolls to pay for the maintenance of the infrastructure. In a sense, the model espoused for the lower Thames crossing project could have exactly the same consequence for motorists, which is that they will end up paying a lot more than the cost of the tunnel. I hope that the Minister can explain why we could not have had specific, ringfenced legislation on this, instead of a general Bill. If we could have had that, we could have made a lot more progress.
I am delighted that my right hon. Friend the Member for Basildon and Billericay (Mr Holden) is saying that we Conservatives would like to leave the Aarhus convention, because it inhibits progress on such projects. I remember all the difficulties we had with the European Union when I was the roads Minister; EU legislation was preventing the completion of the M3 through Twyford down. That environmental interference ultimately cost our economy a significant amount of money, but when anybody uses the M3, they see that it just blends into the landscape and is a really well designed project.
The question I put to my right hon. Friend, rhetorically, was: why did we not do something about the Aarhus convention when we were in government? On this, as on a lot of things, I am delighted that the leader of the Conservative party is showing herself to be a real Conservative. I fear that that we are still suffering from the hangover of a so-called Conservative Government who did not get to grips with issues such as the Aarhus convention, so I am very much with my right hon. Friend on that.
I intervened about the scope for extending the Bill to projects not currently a part of the main highway network or trunk road network. If we want to deal with the problems to do with London bridges, we will have to find some way to fund bridge repairs. I have an interest: my home in London for many years was just south of Waterloo Bridge. Recently, we heard rumours that the bridge may have to close because of cracks in it. If it is closed, that will be the third unusable central London Thames crossing. That is intolerable. Surely, we must find a way of funding the repairs and the reconstruction necessary to keep those London bridges open. My grandchildren talk about London Bridge falling down and all the rest of it, but we are not talking about London Bridge. Three other key bridges in London are either already closed or about to be closed. What are we going to do about that? I would be interested if the Minister is prepared to say, “Yes, I agree that the model set out in the Bill could be applied to the bridges in London that are in desperate need of repair.”
Daniel Francis
I hear what the hon. Member says, but the 2018 changes, made under the previous Conservative Government, introduced tolling at Blackwall and Silvertown. They were voted for by Conservative MPs who now run around south-east London blaming that on the Mayor of London. Can he assure us that if we were to take these matters forward, the Conservatives would take ownership of the changes, rather than pointing the finger at other people, as they are now doing?
Sir Christopher Chope
I cannot, obviously, make an assurance like that; it was a rhetorical question. All I can say is that I think people should take responsibility for their decisions, and we should face up to the fact that if there are costs associated with bits of infrastructure that cannot be funded out of general taxes, we should be prepared to ensure that they are funded by the users. To close down a thoroughfare across the Thames, with no solution or plan for what will happen, is totally unsatisfactory. I would like the Mayor of London to take action, because this comes within his responsibilities. He could easily use some of the income from the congestion charge or the ultra low emission zone charge to fund that. It does not seem as though that is happening, which is why I suggested that the Bill be used for this purpose.
Daniel Francis
May I seek clarity on that matter? My understanding is that not all the bridges in London are the responsibility of Transport for London. Some belong to local authorities and some belong to charities; the Mayor of London does not have direct power over them all. Can the hon. Member clarify that, for the record, given that he has just said that this is a Transport for London and Mayor of London responsibility?
Sir Christopher Chope
I am not going to try to clarify that. It sounds as though what I have said is only partially accurate, but in a sense, that reinforces my point, which is that, whoever owns the bridges or has financial responsibility for them, the financial vehicle identified in the Bill could be used to pay for their repairs and maintenance, to ensure they are brought back into use. I do not purport to be an expert on who owns which bridges. I did not know that any of them were owned by charities. The hon. Gentleman seems to say that they are; I am not going to dispute that, but I do not think that alters the principal point I was making.
I am concerned about other provisions in the Bill, and some of those concerns are identified in the reasoned amendment. It brings in massive new powers for the Office of Road and Rail, at a time when I thought the Government were rowing back on arms-length bodies being given such powers; and there are great powers under clause 99 to basically repeal any legislation retrospectively, as a consequence of the measures in the Bill. I could not understand the references to the insolvency legislation in the Bill. How would that fit into what happened with the building of the channel tunnel, for example? That was a private-investor exercise, and ultimately, the initial investors lost most of their money—but that was a result of them taking the risk. Are the Government suggesting, by taking those powers in relation to insolvency legislation, that different arrangements should operate in the future?
I am sceptical about the Bill, but frankly, when I was a Government Back-Bench MP, I proposed that we should privatise the whole of our motorway network, because that would bring good benefits to the taxpayer and ensure that the network was paid for by the people who use it. Earlier this month, I drove back with my wife from Strasbourg—Strasbourg to Christchurch is about 550 miles, and the tolls amounted to over €100. That was a contribution that I made toward the cost of the French motorway system.
If we are true radicals—this may be too radical for my hon. Friends on the Conservative Front Bench—why can we not privatise our motorways? We cannot privatise the whole of the trunk road network because it that would mean dealing with all sorts of rights of way, bridleways and other complications, but the motorway network is set up in such a way that it could be the subject of one of the largest ever privatisations. I go back to my point about the success in the 1980s of involving private capital and entrepreneurial activity in the development of the Queen Elizabeth II bridge. Why do we not extend that more widely across our road network?
Ruth Cadbury (Brentford and Isleworth) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Christchurch (Sir Christopher Chope), given his deep experience and interesting perspective on bringing in tolls for all our motorways. That may be what happens in certain countries, but I suspect the whole funding of their road network is somewhat different from ours, so I will go back to focusing on the Bill.
I have driven on roads in other countries, and across the bridge to Wales in the past, and it seems entirely natural to me for us to introduce a toll for the lower Thames crossing. It is parallel to the tolled Dartford crossing, and it is hardly going to be the first toll road in the UK. I welcome the Bill, which will enable the funding of the lower Thames crossing to be delivered and maintained through tunnel users paying to use it. It is the first time that a road project has used the RAB model—a model that is already used for energy, water infrastructure and Heathrow airport.
Delivering improved transport infrastructure is core to this Government’s growth mission, so I am glad that the Government are exploring a range of both tried and tested and new methods of working with private sector investors to deliver projects. Those include using RAB for the roads for the first time—as in the Bill—as well as using the community infrastructure levy and further exploring the capture of land-value uplift on new rail schemes. Some of the early private finance initiative schemes in the mid and late ’90s gave public-private funding partnerships a bad name, but I am confident that the relationship between state commissioners and long-term private capital has matured in a way that can only be mutually beneficial.
On the RAB model, however, I do have some concerns. While it provides confidence for investors and a rock-solid return—as the representative of potential investors in the lower Thames crossing told me—there is also a history of gold-plated, over-engineered schemes. Sometimes, as in the case of Heathrow airport, it can be poor value for money, as airlines and businesses that are captive tenants there tell me. All of Thames Water’s bill payers are funding the Thames Tideway tunnel—a project that provides no benefit to my constituency or the health of the River Thames in my constituency, as we are upstream of the intake of the Tideway tunnel.
While there is a regulator in the Bill—the Office of Rail and Road plays an important role—I wonder, as I do with many regulators, whether it has sufficient teeth and funding. Does it have the right powers and sufficient powers over issues such as sustainability, safety, customer focus and local communities? To look again at the example of Heathrow airport, I fear that the Civil Aviation Authority is far too weak in areas other than its core responsibilities of the economy and, of course, air safety.
There is one final issue with the lower Thames crossing that has been exercising both myself and the road haulage industry: the removal of any truck stop or motorway service area from the plans. The Transport Committee produced a report on this matter in 2022, when the hon. Member for Mid Buckinghamshire (Greg Smith), who is now on the Opposition Front Bench, was on the Committee. Our conclusions showed the critical impact of the shortage of safe, secure driver facilities around the south-east, and particularly on routes to and from Dover.
That message was repeated to the Transport Committee in March this year by the haulage industry and driver union representatives. Drivers are required to rest every 4.5 hours and need somewhere to stop and sleep in a place where they and their load are safe, yet we were told that at Medway and Thurrock services, on either side of the Thames, if a driver is not in the motorway service area by mid-afternoon, they would have to go and find an A road lay-by, meaning no toilets, no food and no safety.
Jen Craft
My hon. Friend mentioned Thurrock services. Thurrock is an area that will be heavily impacted by the lower Thames crossing, so I am very glad that she mentions the lack of a service station built into the plans. We already have significant issues with lorry drivers parking in inappropriate places on roads that are not built for that purpose, in order to get the rest that they need because they cannot get into a service station. Does my hon. Friend believe that the lack of a services facility as part of the lower Thames crossing will exacerbate that issue?
Ruth Cadbury
I absolutely believe that it will exacerbate the issue, because the lower Thames crossing will significantly increase vehicle throughput, particularly of trucks and lorries, on what is already a busy part of the network.
The originally proposed MSA or truck stop—I am not sure which—has been removed from the plans, and I am told that there is no plan and no requirement to bring one back. This illustrates a national policy gap. In the French motorway system, there is a full MSA every 50 km and partial ones every 10 km. I am told that it is not too late for proposals, and I really do hope that that is the case, although there would have to be a planning application from a landowner in order to bring one in. I cannot believe that it would not be a profitable opportunity for investors to do that and then in due course to link it into the lower Thames crossing, because of course it is only just along the road from the docks, so there is bound to be demand.
The Opposition amendment says:
“this House…declines to give a Second Reading to the Highways (Financing) Bill, because it has no confidence in the Government’s ability to deliver the project on time and on budget, given its record of cancelling major road schemes across the country”
and risks costs
“spiralling further out of control”.
That is rich coming from the party that oversaw most of HS2’s lifespan. HS2 is so desperately needed by our rail system and northern cities, yet what did the Conservatives do when in government? They started construction before the design was agreed and complete, then halted it and removed about half the length of HS2, thus completely undermining the business case. I could go on.
The lower Thames crossing was commissioned because the Dartford crossing has miles-long queues leading on to it. Extra lanes have been built on the M25, and we have all-lane running on many other motorways, yet on many of them traffic still crawls along at slow speeds due to the sheer level of congestion. While there is no doubt that the lower Thames crossing will relieve pressure on the existing Thames crossings for a few years after it opens, how long will it be until the toll payers are effectively paying to park on the approach road instead to cross to the other side of the Thames?
The DFT forecasts that road traffic will grow by 12% on motorways and 10% on all other roads over the next 10 years. To ensure that our roads do not grind to a halt, I really look forward to a policy that incentivises alternative travel options so that road space is available for those journeys for which there is no choice but to drive. For instance, increasing capacity at the Ely and Haughley junctions, or any number of other rail bottlenecks, would increase rail capacity for freight and passengers at a fraction of the cost of the lower Thames crossing or of opening another lane on a UK motorway.
I do hope that my hon. Friend the Minister and the Secretary of State can provide some assurance to me and this House. Unless there is an overarching transport strategy that supports modal shift, it will not be long before we need an even lower Thames crossing.
Jim Dickson (Dartford) (Lab)
My constituents will be delighted to see this piece of legislation before the House. It is, as others have said, key to unlocking new infrastructure and finally ending the traffic chaos that plagues my Dartford constituency daily. The new lower Thames crossing is planned to be the first new road project funded in this way. The Dartford crossing and the M25 motorway, which along with the A282 provides access to the crossing, cut across the heart of my constituency, providing, as has been said by others, the one crossing over the Thames east of London. This represents a single point of failure, and fail it often does.
The Dartford crossing was designed for 135,000 vehicles a day, but as the Minister has said, the crossing now averages 150,000 vehicles a day and needs to be carefully managed around the clock. When failure happens, it is the residents of Dartford who pay the highest price. When the crossing has to close, which happens regularly, it leaves the town at a complete standstill. Journeys that should take 10 minutes can take four to five hours. Children cannot get home from school, tradespeople cannot get to jobs, and medical appointments are missed. Dartford residents have been waiting for years for this to be addressed.
Earlier this year, on 23 January, an over-height lorry somehow evaded the sensors designed to detect and halt such vehicles and caused significant damage to the roof of one of the tunnels, leading to a closure of more than 30 hours and absolute chaos for residents on both sides of the crossing, as traffic backed up for miles around. Even when there is not a major issue such as a tunnel closure, most days see heavy traffic. For those heading northbound in the evening, 95% of journeys feature delays, with two thirds taking twice as long as they should.
The high amount of slow-moving traffic also has health impacts on Dartford residents, with air quality far below what we should expect. For our country more widely, delays at the crossing affect goods coming to and from ports in the south-east, and the delays are estimated to cost the UK more than £200 million every year in time lost sitting in traffic. It is therefore incredibly welcome that the building of the lower Thames crossing is now proceeding rapidly forward after moving slower than traffic over the Dartford crossing on a bad day under the last Government.
We now see a reasoned amendment to the Bill, which would decline to give it a Second Reading, because the Conservatives do not believe the Government can deliver it on time. That is quite some accusation given their record of—how can I put this kindly—glacial progress on the project. Their 14 years of dither and delay are followed by an active attempt to block progress today. That will go down really well in Dartford, and I have no doubt that Dartford Conservatives will be ecstatic at the antics of their colleagues in the House today.
The new crossing, when finished, will take away more than 10 million vehicles from Dartford, freeing up almost a full lane of traffic. It will be hugely beneficial for the local economy. Thousands of jobs will be created during construction, with half the workforce recruited locally. I hope that that will kick-start a whole generation of new careers in construction for young people across north Kent and Essex. Once built, the new road will increase access to jobs for those living on both sides of the Thames, providing crucial employment opportunities for my constituents and others living nearby.
The campaign to get this piece of infrastructure up and running has been the single biggest priority in my time as Dartford’s MP. I welcome the Bill as a crucial step forward in getting the crossing built and open. I send my thanks to residents, businesses large and small, organisations across Dartford and north Kent, national trade bodies including Logistics UK, local government representatives and colleagues across this House and in the other place for their support with the campaign. I also thank the Secretary of State for Transport and Treasury Ministers, including the previous and present Chancellors, for the planning and funding decisions that they have made.
I appreciate the time the Roads Minister took to discuss the project in the summer and hope that he will indulge me by answering just a few outstanding queries that I have about the operation of the Bill and its impact on the new crossing. Most importantly, on tolls, local residents in Dartford and Thurrock are entitled to discounted use of the Dartford crossing. Will the Minister clarify whether the Bill has any impact on the operation of a future residents’ discount scheme for both the Dartford crossing and the new crossing? It is crucial for my residents that the tolls across the two crossings are set at an equal value and remain affordable via the discount scheme. I would be grateful for any assurance that the Minister can provide on that issue. The arrangement clearly will not work if there is a financial incentive for goods vehicles to use one crossing rather than the other.
It is important to recognise that, at its core, the Bill allows private companies that are licensed by the Government to charge tolls on newly built roads—the mechanism by which we unlock capital to build much-needed new infrastructure. British motorists already pay substantial revenue to the Government through fuel and vehicle excise duties, so does the Minister agree that although it is right to use tolls on new infrastructure in certain circumstances such as this, we do not want to see new toll roads created on currently untolled highways? I am sure that the Minister will give us reassurance on that.
I have some concerns about the vulnerabilities highlighted by the Government’s final stage impact assessment with the Office of Rail and Road, which has been appointed as the independent regulator. How will Ministers address the concerns that have been raised about information asymmetry, such as the concern that in some cases, private firms bidding for and then building and operating the development may possess more detailed information about actual project delivery and operational costs than the ORR, which might allow them to inflate costs, with knock-on inflation in the charges that users will eventually pay? Some reassurance on that would be useful.
Notwithstanding those queries, which I am sure the Minister will answer, I am happy to support this very welcome Bill. I know that it is widely welcomed as the key to unlocking the critical funding needed to build such a vital piece of new infrastructure.
Jen Craft (Thurrock) (Lab)
I am grateful to have the opportunity to speak to this Bill and to talk in particular about its primary focus on the financing of the lower Thames crossing. My constituency will be one of the two areas most impacted by both the operation and the construction of the lower Thames crossing. I will not spend too long dwelling on the question of the road itself. I have been quite vocal in my reservations about the wider scheme—the two Ministers on the Front Bench are nodding along—but that decision has long been taken, and with £1 billion of public money already invested in the scheme, it seems unlikely that it will be reversed. However, the finance mechanisms in the Bill will provide much-needed clarity for the many thousands of people who will be directly impacted by the lower Thames crossing that the project will go ahead. After decades of uncertainty, a number of my constituents will find that most welcome.
I am determined that my constituents will benefit in as many ways as possible from the construction of one of the most significant national infrastructure projects in a generation on their doorstep. However, I seek the Minister’s reassurance on certain aspects of the regulated asset base model that the Bill provides for, particularly how the model allows for an operator to recoup the costs of construction and maintenance via a toll mechanism—mitigating the financial and construction risk of an operator building the lower Thames crossing in a kind of private-public partnership. That potentially creates a natural monopoly, which the Office of Rail and Road, as the regulator, will oversee.
My constituents and I have some probably fairly justifiable concerns about a private enterprise levying tolls, particularly via the use of automatic number plate recognition at tollbooths. Many have had experiences with the current Dartford crossing toll operator in which, when things go wrong, it is hard to get redress. Owing to faulty ANPR, a not insignificant number of drivers have found themselves accruing hefty fines, sometimes into the thousands of pounds, for journeys they have not even undertaken. They can find it very difficult to get redress or to get the fines cancelled or written off. When I attempted to contact the operator of the scheme, I discovered that it was an offshore entity—operating, I think, out of the United States—and it was all but impossible to see transparently who was running the tolls or hold them to account. I would therefore be grateful for the Minister’s assurances around the transparency and accountability of any toll operator for a future Thames crossing, particularly as to how we get redress if things go wrong.
My hon. Friend the Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Ruth Cadbury) raised the Office of Rail and Road’s potential lack of teeth. We all know the difficulties that Ofwat has had in regulating the water industry; rightly, there is now a national outcry about the effectiveness of that regulator in holding private companies to account. It is fair to question whether the Office of Rail and Road is sufficiently equipped to hold to account a private toll operator for the lower Thames, particularly when it comes to redress, or to look at how the tolls are operated.
I also seek reassurance around congestion. My hon. Friend the Member for Dartford (Jim Dickson) spoke about the congestion caused by the Dartford crossing. Believe you me, I know that all too well. I am a lifelong resident of the place that I have the honour of representing, Thurrock, and the congestion at the Dartford crossing—or, as we affectionately know it in my patch, the bridge—is legendary. It causes misery for people, particularly when they are crossing from the Kent side to the Essex side. Every day, the tunnels create a back-up of up to four hours for motorists. When something goes wrong, it does not just prevent people from crossing; it causes congestion around my whole constituency. I know of people spending eight hours making a 10-minute journey. People spend hours trying to get home from school because they are stuck in traffic for hours on end. It is complete and utter misery. I am concerned about whether the lower Thames crossing will mitigate that congestion.
My other concern relates to the tolls levied. If there is a disparity between the charge for using the lower Thames crossing and that for using the Dartford crossing, it is fairly obvious which one most people will use. My predecessor, the former Labour Member of Parliament for Thurrock, Andrew MacKinlay, was instrumental in getting a discount for the Dartford crossing for residents of Dartford and Thurrock. That has proved invaluable, and is an acknowledgment of the fact that we probably bear the brunt of the journeys made on the crossing. When it comes to a residents’ discount for the lower Thames crossing, there should be equal consideration given to the impact that the crossing will have on my constituents. I am concerned that people may opt to use the Dartford crossing if it is cheaper than the lower Thames crossing. That would exacerbate a number of the issues we face.
There are wider issues with the Thurrock road network. Junction 31 of the M25, which leads directly on to the Dartford crossing, is a key part of national road infrastructure. When it goes wrong, it absolutely messes with our logistics industry and people travelling to and from work. My hon. Friend the Member for Northampton South (Mike Reader) asked why he should be talking about something that affects a constituency in the east of England. The truth is that the traffic backs up all the way to the midlands, around the south and around the east of England. It is such a tiny junction—it has so much potential to go wrong.
Recently, before the recess, someone spilt a large quantity of oil at junction 31 in the early hours of the morning while we were experiencing a heatwave. That took National Highways close to, I believe, 20 hours to address. The road remained shut for the entire time, and the congestion it caused in my patch was completely insurmountable. I discussed with National Highways and the police afterwards what we can do to properly get to grips with the fact that when this crucial bit of infrastructure goes wrong, it impacts so many people in my patch. One of the things they suggested, which I would be grateful to discuss with the Roads Minister, is potentially having a dedicated traffic police force for the Dartford crossing. I imagine that it would cover the lower Thames crossing as well given its proximity to many crucial parts of our industry.
It is only right that my constituents, who will be most impacted by the lower Thames crossing, must be those who benefit most from it. I would like to flag a few places where the lower Thames crossing project is currently falling short in some of its commitments to ensuring social value in the most impacted communities. I do not believe that these difficulties are insurmountable.
There is a commitment to employ a significant amount of local people in the build and construction of the lower Thames crossing. However, the geographical area for that is far too broad. It encompasses most of the Greater London area. My constituents, who are a small proportion of people within that area, will struggle to get a look in. I would like the geographical area for local jobs to be restricted to those constituencies that are most impacted, namely Thurrock, Gravesham and Dartford.
Similarly, there is a commitment to use and involve small and medium-sized enterprises in its construction. However, a number of small businesses in my patch, including Labour Base Solutions, have been unable to engage with the project so far, despite trying on numerous occasions. They have instead seen that national contractors seem to be getting priority. I would be grateful to discuss with the Minister what he can do to help change that, because this is enterprise, money, industry and growth that should be coming to my area, given that we will be the most impacted.
I believe that the Bill has the potential to go further and to deliver something that is completely key for transport in my constituency: the return of the Tilbury ferry. If my hon. Friend the Member for Gravesham (Dr Sullivan) were here, she would call it the Gravesend-Tilbury ferry, but in my patch we know what it is properly called. This ferry has been running for the best part of 600 years, having been given the charter by Henry VIII to provide a river service. It was, up until its closure—
Richard Quigley (Isle of Wight West) (Lab)
My hon. Friend makes a good point. I have no skin in the game on the ferry’s name, but I could not let the mention of ferries pass without intervening—I am sure the whole House would be angry with me if I did not. She makes an important point that those of us who have to travel by water feel that ferry travel is not part of integrated transport. Does she agree that it should be, especially in her situation?
Jen Craft
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his intervention. It is a bit like “Beetlejuice”—you mention ferries and he appears; it summons him. He is absolutely correct that ferries should prove a vital part of public transport infrastructure.
Let me turn to the huge and important role that the Tilbury ferry played in our public transport infrastructure locally. It ran continually until 2022 when, unfortunately, due to historic bankruptcy by the then Conservative council, it was unable to pay the subsidy needed to keep the ferry running, and it came to a close. That was an absolute tragedy for my area. Not only did the ferry provide a vital commuter route for a number of people, but a number of my constituents used it to attend schools in Kent, for example—they are now having to make a journey that is about an hour and a half each way, and they are encountering problems at the Dartford crossing that could have been avoided by a quick 10-minute hop across the water.
Gravesend High Street in Gravesham used to lead directly on to the ferry terminal, and those businesses have been hit so hard by the loss of this vital transport link. In my patch, there are fond memories of the ferry, not just for myself and my family but for so many of my constituents. I put a call out for people to share their memories of the Tilbury ferry and to sign my petition, and the numbers hit the thousands within a couple of days. People are desperate to see it return.
The main issue with the return of the ferry is the cost of the subsidy for running it. There is public will to get it back, and there is will from businesses in the area—the Port of Tilbury, Forth Ports, DP World and a whole host of others really want to see it, because they know it provides that link and enables them to encourage people to come and work for them from both sides of the river. Furthermore, if we are trying to get people off our road networks, a large number of people who use the Dartford crossing are projected to use the lower Thames crossing for short hops either side of the river, and the ferry would allow them an alternative, so that they could make that journey in a much more sustainable way, which is much better than adding to the congestion that already exists. It is a much greener way of travelling.
I ask the Minister to seriously consider putting aside a very small proportion of the tolls to be paid on the lower Thames crossing—I am talking about 0.01%, which is less than a penny—to enable the Tilbury ferry to be funded in perpetuity. There is precedent: the Dartford crossing used to fund the subsidy for the Tilbury ferry, until that was given over to the two local authorities at the time, Kent county council and Thurrock council. A levy on the lower Thames crossing would allow the Tilbury ferry to be insulated from potential shocks, such as we saw with the bankruptcy of Thurrock council. It would allow the ferry to keep running well into the future, so that it can serve my children and my grandchildren. It would take people off the already overloaded road network. It would bring life back to Gravesend High Street. It would make sure that people on my side of the river can visit their relatives, go to their hospital appointments, go to work, go to school and just enjoy a really nice day out, and it would prove to people in my patch that we can have nice things and we do deserve them.
This ferry is a crucial part of our infrastructure, and given that people in my patch will be bearing the brunt of the construction and operation of the lower Thames crossing, I believe that they deserve this. I ask the Minister to seriously consider allowing this piece of infrastructure to fund a critical part of the local transport infrastructure and to help me bring back the Tilbury ferry for good.
Mr Mark Francois (Rayleigh and Wickford) (Con)
May I begin by apologising to the hon. Member for Thurrock (Jen Craft) for missing a bit of her speech? I nipped upstairs briefly to see the Children’s Parliament in action in Room 14. It is something our great friend Sir David was passionate about, so I hope the House will forgive my absence; no disrespect was intended. If it helps her, I have heard anecdotally that there is a lot of support for bringing back the Tilbury ferry—if I say that, perhaps she will forgive me.
There has been some debate about whether or not the Conservative party was committed to long-term infrastructure projects. Just for the record, in 1963, the first Dartford tunnel opened; I think Sir Alec Douglas-Home was Prime Minister at the time. In 1986, the first section of the M25 was opened by Margaret Thatcher. In 1991, the Queen Elizabeth II bridge opened, and in 1994, the channel tunnel opened, both during the premiership of John Major. We can trade historical dates, but I think those four examples show fairly conclusively that the Conservative party has been committed to major infrastructure down the decades.
On the lower Thames crossing, as I said in an earlier intervention, the truth is that this has a long and complex history. I know that it has been very controversial in Thurrock and in what is now South Basildon and East Thurrock. This really had a genesis, I think, under the Blair and then Brown Governments, so it goes back a very long way, and it is a fact that the project has been delayed by multiple consultation exercises over a period of years. But we are where we are, and because of the points raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Sir Christopher Chope) about the history of tolls on the QEII bridge, and whether or not they would ever be cancelled, I hope the Minister will understand that there is understandable scepticism—certainly in south Essex—about what would happen to tolls on the lower Thames crossing.
For the record, I have asked the Transport Secretary three times on the Floor of the House over the last year or so which financial institutions are now going to finance the 85% to 90% residual cost of the lower Thames crossing. I heard what the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Connor Naismith) said about the negotiations still being ongoing, but given the history of the whole project, I hope the Minister can understand in all seriousness why some people in south Essex are sceptical that the Government cannot yet tell us which companies or financial institutions would, in fact, pay for it.
When the Minister winds up, will he answer three very specific questions about the lower Thames crossing? First, given all of this complex history, what is the Government’s latest estimated year in which the crossing will open to traffic? Secondly, what is their latest estimate of the toll for a family car when the crossing opens? Thirdly, what is their latest estimate the toll for a 38-tonne lorry when the crossing opens? I would be grateful if the Minister could at least attempt to answer those three specific questions in his winding-up speech. I want the crossing to go ahead, but I want to know when, and I want to know what it is going to cost my constituents to drive through it, be they a private motorist or a lorry driver.
The Bill is about highways financing. I have dealt with the Minister before in a different context when he had a different job, and he has always struck me as a reasonable man—let’s get that on the record—but I wonder if he can understand the frustration in south Essex over the recent decision to cancel the proposed upgrades to the A127. Those upgrades included a scheme to straighten out what is now, in effect, the chicane at the old Fortune of War roundabout, and to add a third lane to the A127 in the Southend-bound direction between the Halfway House, as it is known, and the site of the old Fortune of War. Both those schemes would have increased flow and capacity on the A127. Some months ago, the incoming Labour Government cancelled the proposed widening of the A12, which had been in gestation for almost as long as the lower Thames crossing. I hope the Minister will understand why this has caused immense frustration in south Essex.
A different Department, the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, wants to build 100,000 houses from Grays to Shoeburyness. That is its departmental objective. The Department of Health and Social Care has a particular challenge at Basildon hospital, which is pretty much maxed out as it is. According to the NHS’s own planning metric, it works on a basis of 2.4 additional potential patients per dwelling. The plans say there will be 28,000 additional houses in the Basildon borough, and 35,000 in Thurrock, thanks to Reform and Labour; that is 63,000 in total. When we factor in the 2.4 multiplier, that is 151,200 additional patients—at least by my maths—for a hospital in Basildon that is completely maxed out today as it is.
Mr Francois
I see the hon. Member for Thurrock nodding assent.
That hospital is rated “inadequate” by the Care Quality Commission. It is part of the Mid and South Essex foundation trust—along with Broomfield hospital in Chelmsford, and Southend hospital—which is a failing organisation. How can we build all those houses when there is no real plan of any kind to expand capacity at the hospital? Now we are cutting road programmes on the A127, which is one of the two fundamental east-west arterial roads between London and south Essex, and the A12 obviously feeds into to that area from the north.
The point that I am seeking to get across to the Minister is that none of this is joined up: one Government Department wants to build a vast number of houses; another Government Department is responsible for healthcare but has no idea whatsoever how to cater for what could be a quarter of a million extra people, if we use the NHS metric; and the Department for Transport is cancelling road upgrades that were supposed to increase capacity. At the morning and evening peaks, the A127 and the A13 are at 99% capacity as it is. I have seen the heat maps; the busier the road, the darker the red, and both those roads metaphorically glow scarlet in the morning and evening peaks. We have three different Government Departments with conflicting objectives, but my constituents in south Essex and other people who live there have to bear the consequences.
I have dealt with the Minister before on a constituency case, which I will not go into now, and he was very reasonable and listened. My plea to him this afternoon is: please accept what I am saying as true; please do not cancel anything else in Essex; and, for God’s sake—whatever you do—do not cancel the upgrade to the Fairglen interchange at Rayleigh on the A127, because if you think I am upset now, you want to see me then!
Those are the points that I wanted to make. Some are directly about the lower Thames crossing and some are about other issues, but I think my fundamental point about these key infrastructure projects is: it’s all got to be joined up. We cannot tolerate a situation where we have three Government Departments—I know the Minister is only responsible for one of them—pulling in three totally different directions. I hope that is not an unreasonable point to make in a debate of this kind. With that, I rest my case.
Tristan Osborne (Chatham and Aylesford) (Lab)
It is a real pleasure to speak alongside Kent colleagues, including my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford (Jim Dickson), to see my hon. Friend the Member for Gravesham (Dr Sullivan) in her place, and to hear from Members from across south Essex, whose constituents will directly benefit from the lower Thames crossing. Anyone who has travelled down that stretch will know that the lower Thames crossing will be a vital part of the north Kent infrastructure. When there are problems with the Dartford bridge, disruption can spread all the way down into south-east London and Kent, including into Medway, which I represent.
I want to speak to four elements of the Bill: first, the benefits of the new crossing, including the direct investment it could bring to Essex and Medway, in my local area, and why that is so critical; secondly, the vehicle that will be used by the Government to deliver the project, learning from the National Audit Office review of the Sizewell programme and others about some of the cost considerations of which we need to be mindful; thirdly, the Opposition amendment; and, lastly, the importance and necessity of delivering the project on time.
As many hon. Members will be aware, the Dartford crossing was originally conceived to cater for 136,000 vehicle movements, but it is currently catering for over 150,000. We know from projections that freight movements are due to increase over the next 15 years. As has been mentioned by the right hon. Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois), we are due to see an expansion in population across all of the south Essex and north Kent corridor over the next 15 years as part of the urban sprawl that is moving east of London. He mentioned capacity issues on many road networks. In my area, there are issues on the A229, which crosses from Maidstone into Medway, and with the Medway tunnel—a particular focus that I will come to. We know that there are also constraints on some of the roads connecting Gravesham and Dartford, particularly around Galley Hill.
Mr Francois
For the record, I am completely opposed to the urban sprawl. The Government are trying to impose far too many houses on south Essex. The figure of 100,000 homes that I mentioned is nearly 7% of their entire target of 1.5 million homes—and that is in one half of one county. Nevertheless, if the hon. Gentleman will believe that I am being honest in arguing on behalf of my constituents, I am prepared to believe that he is being honest in arguing on behalf of his.
Tristan Osborne
Housing targets are not unique to this Government—indeed, they have existed in previous iterations throughout the last several decades. Housing has been built in south Essex under the previous Government, and I am sure that permissions were given under Conservative-controlled councils. Similarly, in my area, the then Conservative-led Medway council delivered housing projects. We have to be realistic, because infrastructure is needed to cater for these future developments.
The crossing is necessary because of the capacity issues that have just been raised. The impacts of a blocked crossing have profound implications, including for people trying to get to health appointments and inconvenienced residents. Town centres are blocked, in the case of Dartford and Thurrock. There are also implications for the freight and logistics industry, which have been so eloquently expressed by colleagues from around the country, because the south-east is the key link to European trade.
I am very proud that this Department, led by the current Secretary of State, sought on day one of taking office to give the consent order for this programme. That clearly shows the direction of travel and the focus of a Government to deliver some of these really big infrastructure projects. Alongside Sizewell C and other Government programmes, we know that private investment, working with the Government, can deliver significant projects going forward. We know that projects that cost around £10 billion are Government mega-project schemes, so I ask that this scheme be considered on the Government programme of mega-projects. There has been deliberation about whether HS2 is a mega-project, which has caused some delays, especially around the Euston development site; that was covered in the NAO report.
I know that tolls are a sensitive topic. I agree with my colleagues that there needs to be some consideration of whether those who live in the direct surrounds of not only Dartford and Thurrock, but around the new site in Gravesham and Medway, and on the other side in south Essex, should be considered for toll relief to ensure that they get a fair discount.
Dr Lauren Sullivan (Gravesham) (Lab)
Gravesham will bear one part of the length of the tunnel, so it is important that the people who will be the most affected are able to hold to account toll regulators. There must be accountability for ensuring that toll roads are properly cared for and enhanced for local residents.
Tristan Osborne
I absolutely agree. I know that a number of points have been made to the Minister today about what the tolls might look like, the duration of the programme and the finance involved. Ensuring that there is parity with the Dartford crossing so that people can make a market choice will have to be considered in the round, and I look forward to future representations on that matter.
My residents can see the massive investment benefits of a new crossing: new businesses opening, new residents having potential connections with HS1 through Essex, and the creation of some form of corridor between the Medway towns and Southend. Previously, we overlooked each other on different sides of the river, but the connection will allow us potentially to get to each other’s conurbations in 10 to 15 minutes—those journeys would previously have taken 45 minutes to an hour. The relationship between businesses, including small businesses, has not been discussed today, but this connection has the potential to be a significant multiplier for a lot of businesses across south Essex and north Kent.
I accept that the Bill protects those who will use the road. The Office of Rail and Road will become the independent regulator, and I understand that it needs to be given robust powers around licence conditions. From HS2, we know that previous regulatory regimes have not necessarily been that efficient, so I ask that the Minister learn from some of the NAO reports, which have highlighted where some regimes have failed in the past. The licence holder must share information with the regulator and the Secretary of State. If the company behind the road ever gets into financial trouble, a special administration regime should and must keep the highway running. That means investors would get the certainty they need to commit the capital, and drivers would get a regulator watching over what is built and what is charged. Given some of the high-profile issues with major Government programmes previously, I believe that transparency is absolutely necessary.
There are practical measures in this Bill too. For example, it allows barrierless charging on toll roads. Remote payments mean smoother journeys—I can testify to that for many roads around the country—as well as less congestion at Dartford. However, we need to see continued improvements to the M2, including at junctions around the A229, particularly at Blue Bell Hill; I know that Kent county council has made that representation.
I turn to the reasoned amendment. It starts by recognising the “urgent need” to deliver the crossing after 14 years of numerous development consent orders and court appeals, dither and delay. It has taken this Government to make progress and get the spades in the ground. However, the reasoned amendment asks the House to deny a Second Reading to the one piece of legislation that provides a funding route, questioning whether the project can be delivered
“on time and on budget”.
Many Opposition Members have raised that question this afternoon. I point Members to the structure of the Bill, which puts the independent regulator in charge of scrutinising the costs, and I encourage them to pick up some of these issues in Committee if they do not believe that the Government have a robust understanding. However, rejecting the Bill on the basis set out in the reasoned amendment would cause the delays that Opposition Members are complaining might occur.
It would be remiss of me to not mention that there are other crossings nearby that could be subject to considerable congestion as a result of this project. The Medway tunnel, a key crossing in the Medway conurbation, is putting in a bid to the structures fund to ensure support for its 150,000 crossings per day through increased investment. It was constructed privately through KCC and the Rochester Bridge Trust—an historical anomaly; ownership was transferred to the council some 15 years ago. I encourage Ministers to look closely at the Medway tunnel’s bid, because any impact on the second crossing will have profound consequences for other crossings in Medway. If we do not get Department for Transport funding for improvements to the Medway tunnel, that could cause significant problems for the three MPs who represent that area.
Lastly, the lower Thames crossing has a long and chequered history. As has been said, previous Conservative Governments opened parts of it, and Labour Governments are now progressing with the next stage of it. However, we should all be proud that this is a great British project that could deliver jobs and opportunities for many thousands of my residents, and there could be knock-on benefits for tens of thousands of people across the rest of the country. Every delay to this legislation moves the date of those benefits back for families who have already waited too long, and for people who own homes and businesses in the area and are looking forward to this infrastructure project getting started. I urge the House to reject the reasoned amendment tabled by the Opposition, and give the Bill its Second Reading. Let’s get on with building this crossing.
Peter Dowd (Bootle) (Lab)
I thank the Minister for setting out in a clear and unambiguous fashion the nature and content of the Bill’s 104 clauses and three schedules. I know that the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, my hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield and Rothwell (Simon Lightwood), will be equally clear when he winds up. I also thank—very belatedly—Winston Churchill, who in 1929 provided £2.5 million for the first Mersey tunnel crossing, the Queensway crossing, which was opened by His Majesty King George V. Frankly, that was the last time that the Tories did anything worthwhile for Merseyside.
My hon. Friend the Member for Widnes and Halewood (Derek Twigg), who is sitting behind me, is used to the question about the development of a Mersey crossing. There are also the two toll tunnel crossings we have had since the early ’30s and 1971. There is a history of toll roads in this country; many of them have been on Merseyside, including the two tunnels under the Mersey and the two bridges across the Mersey. What is wrong with that? What is wrong with legislation that will allow the Office of Rail and Road to be the independent regulator? What do the Tories have against that, or against providing a licence regime for construction and operation of the proposals? What problem do they have with laying out highway authorities’ functions in relation to licence holders, or with ensuring fair charges for cars and transparency in service standards? I do not see anything wrong with that at all. What about the Bill’s provision for transfer schemes, to allow property, rights and liabilities to be transferred, as well as a special administration regime and backstops? I cannot quite see what the Conservatives find wrong with that.
My hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Jen Craft), who is no longer in her place, referred to a ferry crossing. There has been a ferry across the River Mersey since 1150—a long time. King Stephen was the monarch at the time; the period was called the anarchy. The Tories know all about that; we had 14 years of anarchy under them.
I do not want to take up much of the House’s time—[Interruption.] I am listening to the Whips as well; I pay clear and unambiguous attention to the Whips. I want to ensure that when projects are introduced and developed, communities are part of that. My experience with National Highways—in relation to the A5036, for example—has not been as good as it could have been. I hope that when and if schemes are developed—whatever the nature of the scheme, be it toll or otherwise—the agencies that have a part to play in them will act with integrity, honesty and passion. If they do not, hon. Members across the House will ensure that they do.
Greg Smith (Mid Buckinghamshire) (Con)
How we pay for infrastructure is a matter that the House needs to take extraordinarily seriously. When the Government announced that they would bring forward measures set out in the King’s Speech on using private finance to build new roads, Labour Members should not have been surprised. After all, the Prime Minister was one of the most effective defenders of PFI schemes in the NHS during his previous time in government, and as Mayor of Greater Manchester his effusive praise of the investment from Manchester City shows his willingness to back private finance. It should therefore come as little surprise that the Government are interested in how we can leverage private funding for our roads. The Minister set out in his opening remarks that this is the biggest change in this area since the 18th century. Well, the Bill does indeed once more open the back door to highway robbery.
Having reflected on the debate and listened to the contributions of hon. Members from across the House, I think that most hon. Members recognise the importance of finding innovative methods to build infrastructure. Members from across the House can look at examples of cost overruns on infrastructure—particularly on the lower Thames crossing—that has used private money and incentives to increase road capacity and improve the experience for drivers. As the Government’s own slightly outdated figures in their impact assessment set out, the vast majority of miles travelled across our country are travelled in our cars, and over two thirds of freight is transported on the strategic road network. That point shone through in many of the contributions.
We started with the hon. Member for Northampton South (Mike Reader) and his public service safety announcement. He was followed quickly by the Lib Dem spokesman, the hon. Member for Didcot and Wantage (Olly Glover), who, in true third-party style, could not muster up a speech without a European comparison. He was followed quickly by my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Sir Christopher Chope), who brought us his memories of 1991 and Her late Majesty, focused on a case of private enterprise at its very best: the QEII bridge. He then shared ideas with the House, based on his ministerial experience. His points on London’s bridges were particularly well made.
Charlie Dewhirst (Bridlington and The Wolds) (Con)
The issue with London’s bridges is highlighted by Hammersmith bridge, which has been closed since 2019. Is it not time for the Government to get a grip on Labour-run Hammersmith and Fulham council and the Labour Mayor of London, and get that bridge reopened?
Greg Smith
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that intervention. Many moons ago, he and I were Conservative councillors in the London borough of Hammersmith and Fulham. I remember in 2014, when I was leader of the opposition on that council—we had a small electoral mishap, and the Labour party had taken control of the council once more—trying to call out the Labour-run council for failing to take the steps necessary to put a plan in place to fix Hammersmith bridge. Today, it remains closed to traffic. That is a bridge owned by the London borough of Hammersmith and Fulham—it is Labour-run, and it is a Labour failure to get that bridge open again.
Daniel Francis
We were all very interested to hear the view of the hon. Member for Christchurch (Sir Christopher Chope) that charging should be spread across London river crossings. What is the shadow Minister’s analysis of the proposal that the cost of river crossings be spread more widely among taxpayers in London?
Greg Smith
I think I am grateful for that intervention. My hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch put some ideas in front of the House that are not necessarily shared by the Conservative Front Benchers. However, his fundamental point—that we have London bridges closed to traffic, and Labour councils such as Hammersmith and Fulham are failing to fix them—desperately needs to be addressed in the interests of motorists in London, and in particular the residents of the London boroughs of Hammersmith and Fulham, and of Richmond.
Mr Louie French (Old Bexley and Sidcup) (Con)
On the point of charging Londoners for driving, over the past two years, we have seen the Mayor of London introduce the Silvertown tunnel charge, and for the first time, there is a Blackwall tunnel charge. The price for drivers has already risen. The Government have even increased the Dartford crossing charge by around 40%.
Greg Smith
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that point. We will come on to those charges later. One thing that has shone through in this debate is that no one can tell us—unless the Minister pulls a rabbit from a hat in his wind-up and gives us a figure—what the charge will be to use the lower Thames crossing once it is built.
Daniel Francis
I am aware that my neighbour the hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr French) has not been here for the debate. We have discussed the fact that the charges at Blackwall and Silvertown were introduced, as a result of the 2018 order, under the Conservative Government. The increases were made under that order, introduced by the previous Conservative Government. Can the shadow Minister confirm that all those measures were introduced not by this Government, but his?
Greg Smith
The hon. Gentleman wants me to get on to road charging, but I do not think that the Labour party wants me to go through the record of the Labour Mayor of London; he introduced the ULEZ and hiked the congestion charge to unaffordable levels.
To move on to another London Member of Parliament, the Chairman of the Transport Committee, the hon. Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Ruth Cadbury) said that she wanted more powers for the ORR on sustainability, as if banning diesel and HVO in the construction of the lower Thames crossing was not bonkers enough. However, I agree with her about HGV driver facilities. I remember in the last Parliament serving alongside her on the Transport Committee when we did an important report on that and visited Thurrock services. The lorry driver was not what I would classically call delighted when the whole Select Committee was shown the shower facilities that he was using at the time to see that the tiles were falling off and everything was not fully in order.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Rayleigh and Wickford (Mr Francois) injected some common sense into the debate, asking serious questions steeped in the history of the project that affects his constituents. He mentioned their scepticism about the cost and the opening date of the lower Thames crossing. We also heard thoughtful contributions from the hon. Members for Chatham and Aylesford (Tristan Osborne), for Bootle (Peter Dowd), for Bexleyheath and Crayford (Daniel Francis), for Thurrock (Jen Craft) and for Dartford (Jim Dickson).
The shadow Secretary of State for Transport, my right hon. Friend the Member for Basildon and Billericay (Mr Holden), raised a fundamental question during his opening remarks: is this the right type of legislation? Why on earth have the Government drafted the Bill in a way that could feasibly allow charges be to be imposed simply for using roads beyond the tolls? Why is that a concern? Well, to quote clause 3 of the Bill:
“A licensing authority may grant a licence to a person authorising the person to charge tolls in respect of the use or keeping of road vehicles on a highway specified in the licence, in return for the person securing works involving…the maintenance, operation or improvement of a highway specified in the licence which has been…constructed in pursuance of the licence or another licence under this section”.
I fear we risk smuggling in charges on drivers through the back door, and are opening the door to the tolling of the M25 and beyond.
At a time when drivers are getting squeezed at the pump and the Government are cancelling multiple schemes, we must be completely clear that the Bill as it stands is not acceptable. That is why my right hon. Friend the shadow Secretary of State tabled our sensible reasoned amendment. We cannot pass a Bill that could impose costs on drivers without a requirement to deliver significantly increased capacity and new schemes.
The Government say that only new big roads will be included, but they have failed to explain why the Bill allows new infrastructure to fall within the scope of tolling. The use of the term “infrastructure” may paint a picture of an entirely new road scheme, but what is there to stop it being something as small as a new set of smart motorway cameras? The Government may protest that that is unfeasible. If so, why will they not amend the Bill to make that abundantly clear? They should put it on the face of the Bill.
By going well beyond the scope of the lower Thames crossing, the legislation puts in place a scheme that is not fit for purpose. If we do not limit its scope, I fear that the words of the president of the AA will be ringing in the ears of drivers. He has said that drivers already pay for roads through £34 billion in fuel duty and road taxes, so extra charges across the road network would be a “toll too far”. As I said earlier, no one can tell us what the tolls for private motorists and HGV drivers will be.
We want the Government to bear down on the costs of building, which make such projects so expensive. That is why we announced at the Conservative party conference that we would leave the Aarhus convention and tackle the rules that allow costly and protracted legal challenges. If we want to achieve low toll prices for drivers and incentivise private investment to build the project at a lower cost, we must reduce the regulatory burden on those involved, as opposed to imposing burdens such as banning diesel machinery. We should use equipment that is cost-effective to get the best deal for motorists, rather than trying to achieve ideological purity.
It is not merely the costs that we have to consider; there is also the structure of the scheme. As has been noted, the RAB model used by the Government will be dependent on the work of the Office of Rail and Road. At a time when the Government are trying to restrict the powers available to the ORR to uphold competition in rail, the organisation that will regulate the scheme will have to have regard to matters including efficiency and economy, the ability of licence holders to finance their licensed activities, safety, impacts on the wider strategic road network, sustainable development, competition and regulatory best practice. It is one rule for road and another for rail, with no consistency from this Government. That really matters.
As the Government’s own impact assessment sets out, using the RAB model for the strategic road network would be a new application of the model. In the literature about the scheme, one of the central principles is the need for a regulator that can control costs and serve drivers. The ORR may be able to achieve that, but we are going in blind. We need complete clarity from the Government about how the scheme will actually work, in addition to answers to the fair questions that have been raised by Members from across the House about the tolling regime. We cannot treat drivers like a piggy bank.
At the Labour party conference, the Prime Minister told the country that people “need breathing space now”, and that he was “determined to provide it.” If Labour MPs want to follow the Prime Minister’s words, they must send a clear message back: unless this Bill clearly prohibits charging drivers for using existing roads, it cannot be allowed to pass through this House.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Simon Lightwood)
I thank right hon. and hon. Members from across the House for their thoughtful and constructive contributions to today’s debate. The House has heard a range of views this afternoon. Some Members have spoken about the opportunities that the Bill presents, and others have rightly pressed the Government on how users will be protected, how local communities will be treated, and how we can ensure that major infrastructure is delivered in a way that provides value for money.
Before I turn to some of the specific points, I want to return to the more fundamental question: why is the Bill needed? The answer is straightforward: the Government believe that we should have a wide range of tools to deliver nationally significant infrastructure, and that we should avail ourselves of those tools to offer the best deal for taxpayers and to help us provide the connectivity that our economy needs. The immediate context for this legislation is the lower Thames crossing, and the House knows the importance of that project. Dartford is operating well beyond the volumes that it was designed to carry. It has become a critical pinch point on the strategic road network, affecting commuters, businesses, supply chains and communities across large parts of the country. The lower Thames crossing will provide additional capacity, greater resilience and a new strategic connection across the Thames.
Simon Lightwood
I have a lot to get through, and I have heard a lot from the right hon. Member already. [Interruption.]
The Bill provides the statutory framework needed to support the Government’s preferred financing approach for delivering this project. It does not grant development consent—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Judith Cummins)
Order. The right hon. Member knows very well that it is at the Minister’s discretion whether he gives way.
Simon Lightwood
The right hon. Member had numerous opportunities to intervene, which were accommodated by the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Bromborough (Justin Madders).
As I was saying, the Bill does not grant development consent, alter planning requirements or remove scrutiny; it provides a financing framework for delivery. However, this Bill is not simply about one project. At its heart, it is about ensuring that the Government have another option available when that is the right solution for delivering nationally important infrastructure. This infrastructure very likely could not exist without this new mechanism or something like it.
It is worth remembering what this Bill is and is not. The Bill does not create the concept of privately financed toll roads. Parliament has already provided a route for private companies to finance, construct and operate toll roads through the concession arrangements under the New Roads and Street Works Act 1991. That route remains available today, and in the right circumstances it can work effectively. The M6 toll is an example of that approach. The principle that private capital can play a major role in road infrastructure is therefore not being invented by this Bill, but the Bill creates a different model.
For some roads, a concession arrangement may be entirely appropriate. Where users have clear alternatives, commercial incentives can play an important role in protecting users’ interests and encouraging good performance. Some infrastructure, however, performs a very different function. Some roads are nationally significant strategic assets that form critical trade corridors and support economic activity far beyond the communities through which they pass, and for many users there may be limited practical alternatives. In those circumstances, the Government believe there is a strong case for independent regulation sitting alongside private investment.
That is why the Bill places the Office of Rail and Road at the heart of that framework. The ORR will oversee performance, scrutinise costs, protect users’ interests, monitor financial resilience and hold operators to account. It will have substantial enforcement powers, including to intervene where performance is inadequate. The Bill also provides important safeguards to ensure continuity of service if a licence holder encounters serious financial difficulties. The purpose of the Bill is not to enable private charging where none has existed before; it is about expanding the Government’s toolkit to better address the range of possible circumstances.
Furthermore, the Bill will help modernise the way tolls are collected and enforced on existing toll roads. Some operators have already moved on free-flow tolling, but the legislative framework has not kept pace. In some cases, existing arrangements are not working as effectively as they should, while in others the necessary powers simply do not exist to enable such a transition. It is right that the law keeps pace with advances in technology, and this Bill provides a clear route for operators to move to a modern tolling system while ensuring that enforcement remains effective.
That brings me to the predominant theme in this debate. Today we have heard just how important local services are to communities across our nation. This Government back local people to make the right decisions for their communities, and we are striving forward with ambitious plans for devolution that will drive growth in every postcode. Fundamentally, this Bill is designed so that users make a contribution towards the costs of major infrastructure from which they derive substantial benefits. Toll revenue should meet the efficient costs of constructing, operating and maintaining the infrastructure for which users are being charged. It would not be right to expand this proposition to a form of centrally imposed local taxation.
I thank my hon. Friends the Members for Thurrock (Jen Craft) and for Gravesham (Dr Sullivan). The Prime Minister has personally committed the assistance of No. 10 North to the campaign of my hon. Friend the Member for Gravesham to find a suitable way to bring back the Tilbury-Gravesend ferry, and we remain open to working with local leaders on similar issues.
The clear theme in this debate has been whether this framework will provide regulation strong enough to protect users and avoid the failings seen in other sectors, including the water sector. We have learned those lessons and the Bill equips the ORR to be a strong and effective regulator from the outset. The ORR already has substantial experience of overseeing road and rail. Its new chief executive, Paul Smith, brings extensive regulatory experience from the UK’s aviation, energy and payment sectors, as well as from senior regulatory roles in Australia. Under this framework, the ORR will monitor licence holders’ financial resilience and long-term performance closely, and the regime will incentivise the right behaviour. Where an operator falls short, there will be meaningful consequences. Ultimately, the ORR will have the ability to suspend tolling while issues are resolved. The Bill also provides a clear backstop for this nationally important infrastructure where necessary.
Dr Lauren Sullivan
Gravesham will be one half of the centre point. Yes, it is a nationally significant infrastructure project, but the people of Gravesham need to ensure that there is accountability, so that the things we saw and learned in Dartford do not happen there. Will there be local representation and local voice, so that the ORR can look at what can make it work better?
Simon Lightwood
There will indeed be a stakeholder group and opportunities for people to feed into that.
My hon. Friend the Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Ruth Cadbury), the Chair of the Transport Committee, was right that transport works best when there is a clear sense of direction and purpose. The Government are committed to providing that through a coherent programme of investment, reform and delivery that will create a more reliable, integrated and sustainable transport network. Indeed, that is exactly why we published our “Better Connected” strategy in April, which set out for the first time a single vision of how roads, rail, buses and active travel should work together to serve the people and places across England.
I want to address directly the reasoned amendment before the House, because it goes to the heart of what the Bill is and what it is not. To be honest, it is as if the Opposition have pleaded with ChatGPT to find any conceivable reason why they could disagree with the Bill. The first thing to note is that while the immediate context for the Bill is, of course, to aid the delivery of the lower Thames crossing, the Bill is about far more than that, so I will not be talking about the budget or project timelines. I will not dwell on the frankly shocking hypocrisy of the Conservative party, which oversaw ballooning costs to HS2, lecturing this Government on financial management. There are other times and places for that kind of discussion. Let me simply say this: the project is progressing, with construction activity already under way. Decisions on the project continue to be subject to rigorous scrutiny, with value for money remaining at the heart of decision making. The project already has its necessary planning approvals, which included the approval to charge tolls for use. In bringing forward the Bill, Parliament is not changing that approved scheme; it will just be providing another option in a suite of tools that the Government have to fund major road projects.
I am confused, Madam Deputy Speaker, because I do not understand why the Opposition want to withdraw from the Aarhus convention at this stage of the process for the lower Thames crossing. The main thing the convention does is to allow public participation in the planning process and ensure that environmental information is made available. It protects public access to reasoning and decision making during the planning process. That stage has already passed in the case of the lower Thames crossing. Withdrawing from the convention now, on behalf of the lower Thames crossing, would do absolutely nothing. The environmental information has already been produced. It has already been scrutinised publicly and published. That stage has passed, so it would not save money now.
The third thing to note is that, as I have just explained, there are already Acts that have been approved by this place that allow the Secretary of State, and indeed local government, to introduce new road schemes that involve charging or tolling without recourse to parliamentary approval.
Finally and most importantly, I must address what can only be described as misunderstandings contained in the reasoned amendment. It is important that this House takes its responsibilities for clear and fair communication with the public seriously, and I want to address that head-on. The Bill provides a mechanism for new infrastructure to be funded through future tolls in a way that regulates the potential impact on road users and provides certainty for investors. It also allows for existing physical tolls to be replaced by free-flowing virtual toll systems. The Opposition support both those measures as far as I understand. There is nothing else in the Bill: it has got nothing to say about applying new tolls on existing roads; nothing to say about wider road-user charging; nothing to say about low-traffic neighbourhoods, 15-minute cites or who shot JFK! There are no conspiracies here. I know the Opposition like to whip up the culture wars whenever they see the opportunity, but their rantings and ravings about the war on motorists, in this place and outside it, are obviously wide of the mark.
What sensible hon. Members will see in the Bill is a common-sense approach to managing our road infrastructure, now and in the future—nothing more; nothing less. Frankly, our constituents would be better served if we scrutinised what was in the Bill, rather than harping on about things that are not. Ultimately, the debate comes down to a simple question: should the Government have another tool to help deliver nationally significant infrastructure; a tool that enables practical partnership with the private sector that, in the right circumstances, can offer a good deal for taxpayers and users, and that comes with a strong regulatory protection. I believe that the Government should have that tool.
The Bill does not require the Government to use that model in every case, it does not place private finance above public finance, and nor does it ask the House to make an ideological choice between the two. It simply ensures that where private investment can help deliver nationally important infrastructure, with strong, independent regulation and robust safeguards for users, the Government have the option. That is pragmatic, proportionate and, above all, focused on delivery. I commend the Bill to the House.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Business without Debate
Business of the House
Jagtar Singh Johal
(1 day, 9 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Douglas McAllister (West Dunbartonshire) (Lab)
I am grateful for the opportunity to raise the urgent case of my constituent Jagtar Singh Johal, a British citizen from Dumbarton who is facing the death penalty in India on trumped up political charges. Jagtar was arbitrarily detained in an Indian prison for 3,254 days. He has been released on bail but continues to face capital punishment in eight dubious cases against him, which duplicate allegations on which he was acquitted last year. Though Jagtar has now been released on bail, he is by no means free. He faces restrictions on almost every aspect of his life and is at great risk while he remains in India. Justice may only be served by returning him to his family and his home in Dumbarton.
Mr Tanmanjeet Singh Dhesi (Slough) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend for his strong leadership on this important issue on behalf of his constituent. Many of my Slough constituents and I have watched with deep concern the case of Jagtar Singh Johal. No doubt, the Johal family will be considerably pleased and relieved that Jagtar has been released on bail after nine long years, but they will still feel considerable uncertainty and distress. Does my hon. Friend agree that this matter has gone on for far too long and that it needs to be swiftly resolved, and that the Minister needs to update the House as to what discussions have been had with Indian counterparts to achieve that aim?
Douglas McAllister
I agree entirely with my hon. Friend’s comments and I will touch on those points during my speech. May I take this opportunity to thank him for his continued and long-standing support and encouragement of me with respect to the fate of my constituent? He never lets a day pass when he does not ask me for an update, and he has shown great solidarity to me and to Jagtar Singh Johal—I thank him for that.
This case has attracted concern from parliamentarians across this House, from human rights organisations, from legal experts and from the United Nations.
Dr Zubir Ahmed (Glasgow South West) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend for giving way, especially as he is getting into the substance of his speech. I want to place on record my appreciation and that of my constituents in Glasgow South West, where there is a large Sikh community, for my hon. Friend’s efforts. He has been tireless since the first day he was elected to this place in trying to secure the release of Jagtar. That resonates very strongly with my constituents in the Sikh community across Glasgow South West.
Does my hon. Friend agree, though, that although we are slowly starting to move in the right direction, there is still deep concern because Jagtar faces the death penalty? The Johal family—which includes friends of mine, such as Gurpreet, who is a local councillor in the west of Scotland—must be filled still with trepidation. Does he further agree that there is also a wider context, whereby someone born in this country—a British citizen, a second-generation Indian—has found himself in this situation, incarcerated for nearly a decade? That sends shivers down the spines of hundreds of thousands, possibly millions, of people in that situation living in Britain today who would wish to visit India.
Douglas McAllister
I agree entirely with my hon. Friend, who makes a powerful point about the ongoing position of my constituent Jagtar Singh Johal. I thank my hon. Friend not only for his intervention, but for his continued support for me and my constituent, Jagtar. He has been unfailing in his commitment, on behalf of Glasgow South West, to demonstrating the ongoing support across the west of Scotland and the nation for securing Jagtar Singh’s safe return home.
In opposition, my party rightly called for Jagtar’s release on the basis that he was arbitrarily detained. It is my hope that through effective diplomacy, we will be able to deliver that outcome. Above all, this case has deeply affected Jagtar’s family in Dumbarton, who have spent nearly a decade fighting for justice and searching for answers.
Deirdre Costigan (Ealing Southall) (Lab)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this debate and on his tireless campaigning for his constituent, which is an example to us all. I wrote to the former Foreign Secretary and to Ministers on several occasions to raise Jagtar Singh Johal’s case on behalf of many of my British Sikh constituents in Ealing Southall, who have been hugely concerned for his safety and legal rights. Does my hon. Friend agree that this is a testament to many in the British Sikh community in his constituency, in mine and in many constituencies across the country, who have rallied behind Jagtar Singh Johal, and that that is part of the reason that he has now been released on bail from prison?
Douglas McAllister
I could not agree more with my hon. Friend. I place on record my thanks to her and, as she validly says, the British Sikh community across the United Kingdom, Sikh Federation UK and the all-party parliamentary group on British Sikhs. Without that collective support, we would not have secured what we have today, which is his release on bail, but the fight continues.
Jagtar, of course, is from my West Dunbartonshire constituency. His ordeal is a matter of huge concern to many of my constituents, who have urged me to continue pressing Jagtar’s case in this place. I am grateful for the continued efforts of campaigners in my constituency and beyond to keep me updated on developments. Although I have never spoken to Jagtar, I hope one day to meet him as a free man, shake his hand and have that long-awaited conversation.
Jagtar travelled to India in 2017, shortly after his wedding. What should have been one of the happiest periods of his life turned into nine years of unimaginable suffering. While shopping with his wife in Punjab on his honeymoon, he was abducted from the street by hooded men who were later identified as police officers. He was held incommunicado for 10 days. During that period, he was subjected to electric shocks, sleep deprivation, stress positions and threats against his life. It is now known that a forced confession was extracted from Jagtar through torture. Following that, he was sent to prison, where he remained arbitrarily detained for almost nine years. The highly political accusations against Jagtar are not supported by any material evidence—no bank records, no email trail, no CCTV or anything of that kind. In fact, the case against him is based on that forced confession, obtained under days of torture.
These deeply concerning events are not simply claims made by campaigners or family members. They have repeatedly been the subject of international concern and scrutiny. In May 2022, the United Nations working group on arbitrary detention concluded that Jagtar was being detained arbitrarily and called for his release. In April this year, 10 UN special rapporteurs and independent experts issued an even stronger statement. They found that there was “no rationale” for Jagtar’s continued detention and stated:
“Eight and a half years of arbitrary detention without a clear path to trial is not justice, it is unlawful suffering.”
They went on to say that the prolonged uncertainty surrounding his case amounted to a form of psychological torture. These are exceptionally serious findings from the UN.
The same experts raised concerns regarding the apparent duplication of charges, the presumption of innocence, the misuse of counter-terrorism legislation and the continued reliance on evidence allegedly obtained through torture. They stated:
“International law is unequivocal: torture includes severe mental suffering caused by prolonged uncertainty while awaiting trial…It also prohibits the use of evidence obtained through torture in proceedings and requires prompt, transparent and fair trials”.
Those principles should guide every justice system. They should also guide our response when those principles appear to have been breached in the case of a British citizen, as has happened with Mr Johal.
There have been hundreds of hearings over the course of these proceedings, yet judges recently observed in a written order that the trial is not likely to conclude anytime soon, which is incredibly worrying. There was a significant development in March 2025 when a court in Moga acquitted Jagtar of all charges. Prosecutors had spent seven years pursuing the prosecution of that case and ultimately failed to present credible evidence. Yet despite that acquittal, Jagtar remained imprisoned because he continued to face eight other cases, which are essentially duplicates. They all have similar underlying allegations, the same disputed confession and the same questionable evidence. That is backed up by UN experts, who have raised concerns about the similarity of these charges, as well as issues around double jeopardy, the presumption of innocence and the use of evidence allegedly obtained through torture.
This month, there has finally been progress. Following a bail order granted on 18 September, Jagtar was released from Tihar jail on 1 October—after almost nine years in custody. This is very welcome news, and I know it has brought enormous relief to his family, friends and supporters.
Patricia Ferguson (Glasgow West) (Lab)
As his constituency neighbour, I praise my hon. Friend’s steadfast campaigning on this issue, which began before he was elected to this place. Does he share my concern that the fact it took another court to demand that Jagtar be released on the bail that had already been granted some days before shows how intransigent the Indian authorities are in this case? That gives us all pause for thought. I hope that the improving economic relationship this country now has with India can be part of the leverage that will be used to make the Indian Government do the right thing at last.
Douglas McAllister
My hon. Friend makes an important point, which I will touch on towards the conclusion of my speech. I agree entirely with her comments, and would like to take this opportunity to thank her not only for her intervention but for the support she has shown me over the last two years in our joint fight for justice for my constituent Jagtar Singh Johal.
Jagtar remains subject to strict bail conditions. He remains on trial in eight outstanding cases. He remains under the threat of serious criminal charges and potentially the death penalty if convicted. He is unable to return home to Scotland. While his release represents an important step forward, it does not bring this case to an end.
This debate is not intended to undermine the relationship between the United Kingdom and India. I am very aware that India is a hugely important partner to us and a valued friend. Nor do I underestimate the complexities involved in consular cases overseas. I recognise that Ministers and officials have intervened on this case over the years and that representations have been made at various levels. Indeed, a number of previous Foreign Secretaries have raised Jagtar’s case with their Indian counterparts.
Most recently, the current Foreign Secretary spoke to India’s External Affairs Minister, Minister Jaishankar, last month and stressed that Jagtar’s case had been a concern for a long time. I am grateful to the Foreign Secretary for raising this, but the response from Minister Jaishankar was not good enough. As he has done in the past, he insisted that he cannot interfere with the courts, but after almost nine years, concern alone cannot be the measure of success. Raising Jagtar’s case at any opportunity is not good enough, and his family saw little evidence of progress coming from these supposed discussions. The measure of success must be whether Jagtar is finally able to return home.
In September 2023, a Government Minister argued that publicly calling for Jagtar’s release was not in his best interests. The Government therefore chose not to call for his release at that stage. Now, the circumstances have changed. The opportunity before us has changed, and the Government’s approach must change, too.
I was pleased to see the appointment of a UK envoy for complex consular detentions, who is responsible for supporting British nationals detained overseas in complex cases. I know that he has met Jagtar’s brother Gurpreet, whose commitment throughout this campaign has been extraordinary. Since the very start, he has spoken up for his brother with determination, dignity and resilience. I thank Gurpreet for being Jagtar’s biggest supporter and advocate, and for relentlessly fighting for his release. I also wish to thank the team at Reprieve, who fight for people facing torture, unlawful detention and the death penalty—
Douglas McAllister
I thank the team at Reprieve for their diligent support and assistance to me and to Jagtar over the last two years. However, since the meeting with the envoy, the family have received little information about what concrete action is being taken. I hope the Minister can provide greater clarity today. Can we have a timeline for action, given that Alistair Burt was appointed to the envoy role some months ago?
This week, the Scotland Secretary, the Business Secretary and the Environment Secretary were in India on a trade mission. That is a clear illustration of the fact that our Government are developing an increasingly strong working relationship with India. Given the strength of that relationship, there is no reason why we should not be raising Jagtar’s case at every opportunity. While I understand that this week’s visit was a trade mission, and that Jagtar’s situation may be an inconvenient truth, our Government need to do everything they can at this crucial time to ensure Jagtar’s safety.
The predominant fear is that Jagtar’s release on bail could be treated as the conclusion of this case, rather than the beginning of a critical new phase. Jagtar is not out of the woods yet: the threat of further proceedings is a reality, and the threat of the death penalty remains. The uncertainty and injustice prevail. That is precisely why our Government must act now. They could have intervened when he was first detained; they did not. They could have intervened when the UN working group on arbitrary detention ruled that Jagtar was wrongfully imprisoned; they did not. They could and should have intervened when he was acquitted of all charges in the Moga district trial, but they did not.
Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)
This unfortunately is not the first debate that I have attended on behalf of Jagtar Singh Johal, and I commend the hon. Member for bringing this issue back to the Floor of the House. I was there when the previous Minister said that it was not in Jagtar’s interests to intervene and call for his release. That was about sending a signal. In fact, one of the signals that we now want to send is the offering to Jagtar of diplomatic protection. That would be of enormous significance to Jagtar, obviously, but it would also send a very potent signal to the Indian Government. Will he join me in saying that that is exactly the sort of thing we would like to hear from the Minister when he responds?
Douglas McAllister
The right hon. Member is 100% correct: that would be a very potent signal, and I am sure that that point has not been lost on the Minister. I thank the right hon. Member for his intervention, and for his long-standing and continued support for my constituent, which is greatly appreciated.
I am not here today to point the finger of blame at anyone specifically. We must work together with the Indian Government and use our close relationship. Right now, we have the best chance we will get to bring Jagtar Singh Johal back home to his family in Dumbarton. For years, Ministers could point to the fact that Jagtar remained imprisoned, and that court proceedings were ongoing. Today, the situation is different. Jagtar is no longer behind bars. The international pressure surrounding his case is growing, and the UN has repeatedly called for action. All the allegations against Jagtar have been tested in court, and Jagtar has been acquitted, yet with the duplicate cases against him remaining, a court has essentially acknowledged that proceedings may continue indefinitely.
If there was ever a moment to intensify diplomatic efforts, it is now. This is not the time for routine engagement and simply “raising” the case with Indian counterparts; it is the time for a co-ordinated, sustained and determined effort to bring the case to a conclusion and bring Jagtar home. The Government cannot change what happened in 2017, but they can help to determine what happens next. This may well be the best opportunity we have had in years to secure a just outcome, and I urge Ministers to seize it.
Jagtar’s case is not the only case of a British national arbitrarily detained abroad. Ryan Cornelius has been imprisoned in the United Arab Emirates since 2008. The UN working group on arbitrary detention found that his detention, like Jagtar’s, was arbitrary. His original sentence was extended by a further 20 years through the retrospective application of legislation, despite serious concerns regarding due process. Similarly, Jimmy Lai, a 78-year-old British citizen in Hong Kong, has now spent more than 1,800 days in detention. He was sentenced earlier this year to a lengthy prison term on national security charges, and faces what is now essentially a death sentence. Those cases are all different, but they share a common theme. When British citizens face arbitrary detention, unfair legal proceedings or serious human rights concerns overseas, our Government may be the only institution capable of advocating effectively on their behalf.
Every year, significant numbers of British citizens report torture or mistreatment while detained abroad. In many cases, diplomats are the only link between those individuals and the outside world. Parliament has a duty to ensure that such cases remain visible, and that Ministers continue to pursue them with determination. Jagtar’s release on bail is welcome, but it is crucial to remember that this case is not over. For too long, his case has been characterised by delay, uncertainty and missed opportunities. Now more than ever, there is a genuine opportunity to move things forward. The Government should treat this moment with the urgency and seriousness it deserves. I recognise that Ministers cannot direct foreign courts, and I recognise the importance of maintaining a strong relationship with India, but friendship between nations should never prevent us from standing up for the rights of our citizens. I strongly urge the Government to seize this opportunity and make resolving this case the diplomatic priority it should be.
Jagtar Singh Johal has lost almost nine years of his life. His family have lost almost nine years with their son, brother and husband. We cannot give those years back to them, but we can ensure that nine years does not become 10 years or more. I urge the Minister to please use every diplomatic channel available, engage at the highest levels of Government, press for a swift conclusion to the remaining proceedings, and work to secure Jagtar’s safe return home to my constituency of West Dunbartonshire.
Jas Athwal (Ilford South) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for West Dunbartonshire (Douglas McAllister) for resolutely leading the charge in Parliament to bring British national Jagtar Singh Johal back home. Earlier this month, after almost nine long years behind bars, Jagtar finally walked out of prison and into the arms of his loved ones. After nearly a decade of anguish and uncertainty, his family could finally experience a moment of relief. It is frankly shameful that our great country has allowed a British national to languish in a foreign prison, reportedly to face torture, in what the UN has confirmed is arbitrary detention.
More shameful still is that despite this long overdue breakthrough, Jagtar’s nightmare ordeal is far from over. He may be out of jail, but he has had to surrender his passport. He remains trapped in India, thousands of miles from home, and still faces eight outstanding cases—cases that, in nine years, have yet to reach a conclusion or, in some cases, even a start. Britain has failed Jagtar, and frankly India has, too. India, which prides itself on being the world’s largest democracy, has dragged its feet for nearly a decade, failing to bring those cases to a conclusion within a reasonable timeframe, and trapping a British national on foreign soil for nine long years without conviction.
I ask two questions to the Minister—I appreciate that other Members have raised similar matters. What concrete diplomatic steps have the Government taken, and what further action will they now take to secure Jagtar’s safe return to the United Kingdom? Secondly, what does it say about Britain if we cannot secure the freedom of one of our own citizens after such a long time? Jagtar’s case is a matter of deep national humiliation. His bail must spur urgent action to bring him home; it should not become another milestone that we merely welcome before turning to the next item on the UK-India agenda, or a trade deal.
Warinder Juss (Wolverhampton West) (Lab)
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for West Dunbartonshire (Douglas McAllister) for his tireless work on behalf of Jagtar Singh Johal and his family. I know about that work, because I have had regular meetings with my hon. Friend about his constituent. I thank him for his efforts, and for the open and collaborative way in which he has always engaged with me.
In my constituency of Wolverhampton West, some 15% of the population is Sikh—one of the highest percentages in the country. Sikh and non-Sikh constituents have contacted me, deeply concerned about Jagtar’s treatment and the way that his case has been handled, and urging the Government to do more to ensure the just resolution of his case.
When I previously raised Jagtar’s case in the House, I mentioned the United Nations working group’s finding that his detention was arbitrary and his fair trial rights had been violated. The allegations of torture and the extraordinary delays in the proceedings remain deeply troubling. It appears that the rules of natural justice and the rule of law simply did not apply to Jagtar’s case.
I warmly welcome Jagtar’s release on bail. For him and his family, who have had so many setbacks, this is an immensely important step, but the conditions of his bail are still unfair. His passport has been surrendered, his freedom remains severely restricted and he cannot come home to Scotland. He continues to face allegations that could result in the death penalty. His release from prison is certainly not the end of our efforts.
Next month, it will be nine years since Jagtar was arrested on the streets of Punjab in India, but nine years later, there has not been a single conviction against Jagtar. Those are years that Jagtar and his family can never recover, and they have endured great suffering during that period. I urge the Government to use every diplomatic channel available, at the highest level, to secure a resolution of Jagtar’s case without any further delay, so that he can safely return home. Will the Minister explain what steps are being taken to achieve this? How many times have we heard in this House that justice delayed is justice denied? Jagtar Singh Johal has already had his justice delayed for far too long.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Chris Elmore)
I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for West Dunbartonshire (Douglas McAllister) for securing this important debate, his continued attention to the case, and his support for Mr Johal and his whole family. He has advocated relentlessly for Mr Johal since he became the MP for West Dunbartonshire in 2024. I also thank all hon. Members who have intervened during the debate. I pay particular tribute to my hon. Friends the Members for Ilford South (Jas Athwal) and for Wolverhampton West (Warinder Juss), who made further contributions. I am grateful for all the thoughtful interventions. Most of all, I want to acknowledge Jagtar’s family, including his wife and his brother.
This case has been a matter of deep concern for successive Governments for many years. At the outset, I want to recognise the immense toll that the long-running case has taken on Mr Johal and his family. Nearly nine years in detention without a resolution to his legal proceedings has been an extraordinarily difficult experience. As we have discussed today, Mr Johal was released on bail on 1 October after almost nine years in pre-trial detention in India. This welcome development in the legal process represents an important step forward in Mr Johal’s case, after such a prolonged period of detention. As this House knows, we have consistently raised our concerns about the length of pre-trial detention and other issues, which I will come to shortly.
Since his release, officials at the British high commission in Delhi have met Mr Johal on two occasions. They will continue to provide him with consular assistance while he remains on bail, pending the conclusion of his trial. Additionally, officials at the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office and, as has been mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for West Dunbartonshire, our envoy for complex consular detentions, Alistair Burt, a former and highly respected Member of this House, have maintained regular contact with the family here in the United Kingdom.
I should be clear that Mr Johal’s case is not over. While there has been progress in some respects—we welcome the progress represented by the earlier acquittal in the state court—eight cases against him remain outstanding before the Indian courts. It is crucial that those proceedings are resolved as quickly as possible within India’s independent legal system.
I have already made this point, but it bears repeating that the Government have consistently raised concerns about Mr Johal’s case with the Government of India at every opportunity. Engagement has spanned successive Governments and Ministers and has stressed our legitimate concerns regarding Mr Johal’s prolonged pre-trial detention, his very serious allegations of torture and mistreatment, and his right to a fair trial. Most recently, as my hon. Friend the Member for West Dunbartonshire has mentioned, the Foreign Secretary raised Mr Johal’s case with his Indian counterpart on 24 September during the United Nations General Assembly in New York. That sustained engagement demonstrates the importance that the Government continue to attach to this case, and our commitment to seeking a prompt and full resolution to the outstanding cases against him. At every stage, we have emphasised the need for due process, and for the legal cases to come to a resolution without delay.
As I have emphasised, Mr Johal’s release on bail does not mark the end of these prolonged proceedings. The Government share the view of Mr Johal’s family and many hon. Members that the legal cases should now move forward without continued delays. India is a sovereign democracy with an independent judiciary, and Mr Johal’s legal proceedings are a matter for the Indian courts. We have made clear to the Government of India our interest in the legal petitions put forward by Mr Johal’s defence team, and our expectation that they will be heard. We continue to raise our interest and concerns with the Government of India at every appropriate opportunity, pressing for a full and fair resolution through the courts, and that must include an investigation into his allegations of torture and mistreatment.
Let me cover some points raised by my hon. Friend the Member for West Dunbartonshire and Members from across the House on two important areas. One is around the sustained campaign on Mr Johal’s case. I assure the House that I have seen the co-ordinated effort of Ministers, including many Prime Ministers. I do not say that in jest; it is a matter of fact that we have had a number of Prime Ministers in recent times. They go all the way from former Prime Minister Boris Johnson to the most recent former Prime Minister, Keir Starmer. The case has also been raised most recently by the Foreign Secretary. I argue that a sustained and co-ordinated piece of work is being undertaken by British Ministers of successive Governments of all colours to secure a way forward for Mr Johal.
My hon. Friend the Member for West Dunbartonshire rightly challenged me, as the Minister with responsibility in this area, on the work on the UK-India trade deal. That issue was also raised by a number of my hon. Friends. I assure the House that any support or negotiations on consular matters are not connected to our work on trade deals, and we continue to raise Mr Johal’s case.
Let me conclude by reiterating that the Government remain fully engaged in Mr Johal’s case. His release on bail after nearly nine years in detention is an important and welcome moment for him and his family, but significant legal proceedings remain outstanding. As I have said, we will therefore continue to press the Government of India for a prompt, full and just resolution to Mr Johal’s cases in India’s independent legal system, and we will continue to provide consular assistance. After nine painful years, Mr Johal and his family deserve to see these long-running legal proceedings move forward, and the Government will do everything that they can to support that outcome.
Question put and agreed to.
Immigration and Asylum Bill (Fifth sitting)
(1 day, 9 hours ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Chair
We continue line-by-line scrutiny of the Bill. Before we begin, I remind Members to switch off their electronic devices or put them on silent. Tea and coffee are not allowed during sittings. The selection list for today’s sittings is available in the room and on the parliamentary website. This shows how the clauses, schedules and selected amendments have been grouped for debate. Members are reminded to bob and catch my eye if they wish to speak in any debate.
Clause 17
Sponsor claims
The Minister for Border Security and Asylum (Anna Turley)
I beg to move amendment 130, in clause 17, page 13, line 30, leave out from “claim’” to “, at” in line 32.
This amendment and amendment 131 are consequential on the repeal of section 12 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 2006 (which was never commenced) by the Schedule inserted by NS1.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Government amendment 131.
Amendment 94, in clause 17, page 14, line 8, at end insert—
“, provided that the Secretary of State may only designate a place by regulations made by statutory instrument and that such a statutory instrument may only be made if a draft of the instrument has been laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.”
This amendment would require the place at which sponsor human rights claims may be made to be set by regulations subject to the affirmative procedure.
Amendment 112, in clause 17, page 14, line 11, at end insert—
“(e) after subsection (1A) insert—
“(1B) Where a person makes a sponsor human rights claim, the Secretary of State must carry out safeguarding checks in relation to that person before determining the claim.
(1C) The safeguarding checks under subsection (1B) must establish, so far as reasonably practicable, whether the person making the sponsor human rights claim—
(a) has been convicted of an offence involving domestic abuse, stalking, sexual offending or forced marriage;
(b) is subject to a relevant protective order relating to domestic abuse, stalking, sexual offending or forced marriage;
(c) has been the subject of a finding by a court or other competent authority of conduct involving domestic abuse, stalking, sexual offending or forced marriage; or
(d) has previously been the subject of an immigration decision in which concerns relating to forced marriage, abuse or the genuineness of a family relationship were material.
(1D) Where information falling within subsection (1C) is identified, the Secretary of State must take that information into account when determining the sponsor human rights claim and any decision relating to the family member to whom the claim relates.
(1E) The Secretary of State must consider whether the information identified under subsection (1C) indicates that the admission of the family member to the United Kingdom would give rise to a safeguarding risk to—
(a) the family member;
(b) any child affected by the decision; or
(c) any other person who may reasonably be expected to be at risk as a result of the admission.””
This amendment would require the Secretary of State to carry out safeguarding checks where a person makes a sponsor human rights claim under Clause 17.
Amendment 95, in clause 17, page 14, line 15, leave out subsection (3).
This amendment would remove the exemption of sponsor human rights claims from the inadmissibility provisions in section 80A of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002, to test why such claims should be treated more favourably than other human rights claims.
Government amendment 96.
Amendment 97, in clause 17, page 15, line 4, at end insert—
“(8) In section 82 (right of appeal to the Tribunal), after subsection (1) insert—
“(1ZA) An appeal does not lie under subsection (1)(b) against a decision to refuse a sponsor human rights claim unless the family member to whom the claim relates would, if they lived with the person who made the claim, be a member of that person’s core cohabiting family within the meaning of section 117AA(2).””
This amendment would confine the new sponsor right of appeal to claims relating to a spouse, civil partner, partner or minor child (or, for a child sponsor, a parent), in line with the Government’s own definition of the core cohabiting family in clause 18.
Clause stand part.
Anna Turley
It is good to see you again this morning, Mr Stuart, and good morning to all colleagues. We start our debate by moving on to part 2 of the Bill, which relates to article 8 of the European convention on human rights. Article 8, the right to a family life, is an important protection, but it is a qualified right. That means that it can be balanced against a public interest—such as the safety of the community or the security of our borders—where that outweighs an individual’s personal rights. We will not step away from our belief that the right to family and private life must be respected and upheld. However, we have been clear that we must strike the right balance between the rights of the individual and fairness to the UK public, and, crucially, bear down on abuse of the system.
As set out in our impact assessment, each main applicant granted first time on article 8 grounds carries an estimated lifetime cost to the taxpayer of about £141,000, equating to approximately £4.9 billion for those granted in 2025 alone. Home Office analysis suggests that 71% of first-time grants on the basis of article 8 were to individuals who had entered illegally and/or overstayed. If the same applied to the estimated 42,000 first-time grants in 2025, this would mean that 30,000 overstayers and illegal entrants would have been allowed to stay last year on the basis of article 8. Between 1 April 2016 and November 2021, of 1,011 foreign national offender deportation appeals allowed on human rights grounds, 70% were solely on article 8 grounds. And with 77,000 applications granted on article 8 grounds last year, this is having a significant effect on our ability to enforce our immigration laws.
Therefore, in this Bill, we are changing how article 8 is applied in the UK immigration system, to restore public confidence and ensure that the UK application of rights is in line with the Strasbourg court. The application of article 8 will be tightened to prevent misuse of the system and ensure that the public interest in maintaining effective immigration control carries proper weight in immigration decisions. As my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has made clear, the abuse of human rights law does not just erode the public’s support for our immigration system; it erodes their support for the very idea of having such laws at all. For those who believe that those laws matter, it is essential that we reform them to end their abuse. The reforms will put more emphasis on compliance with our rules and contribution to our economy and to our society.
Clause 17 aims to bring greater clarity and control to entry clearance applications that engage article 8, protecting genuine family relationships while preventing weak or tenuous claims from undermining public confidence. Taken with the reforms in clauses 18 and 19, which we will come to in forthcoming groups and which tighten key elements of the article 8 assessment, it strengthens our ability to enforce the immigration rules and create a fairer, more controlled system.
The clause amends the definition of a human rights claim in the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 to create a “sponsor human rights claim”. This will lay the foundations to allow UK-based sponsors to make an entry clearance application for an overseas family member to join them in the UK if the application relies on the sponsor’s article 8 right to family life. It will also enable the sponsor to appeal to the immigration tribunal if the Home Office refuses their application. I want to be very clear that only individuals with a specified status, including British citizens and those with other lawful residence, will be able to make a sponsor human rights claim. They need to establish a genuine family life claim and show that refusal would disproportionately interfere with their article 8 rights. These reforms do not create a new migration route or entitlement to come to the UK. They simply ensure a correct process that is based on the UK sponsor, not the family abroad.
The clause will affect sponsors who wish to rely on article 8 family life because their family member does not meet the entry clearance requirement under the family routes and immigration rules. Enabling the UK-based sponsor to apply will focus attention on the circumstances and article 8 rights of the sponsor, rather than the overseas family member. This reflects the established legal position that it is the sponsor who is within the UK jurisdiction for the purposes of article 8 decision making. The focus on the rights of the UK sponsor is intended to reduce expansive interpretation of where article 8 rights are found to exist, and to prevent article 8 becoming a route for those with tenuous family links to the UK.
Too often, the focus can be on the circumstances of the applicants abroad, whereas the main legal question should be whether there is a disproportionate interference with the family life of the UK-based sponsor.
Melanie Onn (Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes) (Lab)
Will clause 17 make it easier for people to come to the UK on an article 8 basis if we do not specify where sponsor human rights claims can be made?
Anna Turley
I thank my hon. Friend for asking a really important question, because it is right that we clarify this matter. The clause does not make it easier for overseas family members to enter the UK. Sponsors will still need to meet a very high threshold to argue successfully that it would be a breach of their article 8 rights if the Home Office refused their family member entry to the UK. Strict requirements for the procedure sponsors must follow to make an application, which will be set out in the immigration rules.
The focus on the rights of the UK sponsor is intended to reduce expansive interpretation of where article 8 rights are found to exist, and to prevent article 8 from becoming a route for those with tenuous family links to the UK. Too often, the focus can be on the circumstances of the applicants abroad, whereas the main legal question should be whether there is a disproportionate influence on the family life of the UK-based sponsor.
Joe Robertson (Isle of Wight East) (Con)
As I understand it, the purpose of this new provision is to focus on the rights of the person in the UK, to ensure that their right to a family life is respected according to their circumstances. But their circumstances will be that their other family member is living abroad; that is their family life. I do not understand why that pre-existing situation would suddenly infringe their human rights and give them the right to bring in a family member. Their circumstance, by nature, is people living in two different countries.
Anna Turley
The hon. Member makes a really important point. That is why we are trying to narrow the definition to those who are here in the UK, because for far too long it has been on the basis of a very tenuous link that family members can put in a claim from abroad to come to the UK. This measure narrows that definition while still ensuring that we maintain our obligations under article 8 rights.
The recent Court of Appeal judgment in IA and others v. Secretary of State for the Home Department provided helpful clarification around the correct tests to determine where article 8 family life exists, especially between extended family members. However, the judgment addressed an issue with article 8 family life being applied to a broader set of circumstances and relationships, which risked undermining our systems and rules. Despite these helpful findings, there remains a risk of inconsistent decision making, where the primary focus is not on the article 8 rights of the family member in the UK—the person within the UK’s jurisdiction according to ECHR case law.
The clause will add greater weight to the findings of the Court of Appeal and bring more clarity to decision making for entry clearance cases that engage article 8 family life. In IA, the Court of Appeal also reaffirmed the importance of the Government’s immigration policy when striking the right balance between an individual’s rights and the public interest.
In combination with the reforms in clauses 18 and 19, clause 17 makes it clear where the Government’s policy position lies in relation to the application of article 8 and where the Government expect the rules to be enforced. This will create a clearer, fairer and more controlled system. Details of the application process, including forms and evidential requirements, will be set out in immigration rules and supporting guidance.
Given the complexity of the clause, I will give Members an overview of each subsection. Subsection (1) creates a “sponsor human rights claim” in law by adding to the existing definition of a human rights claim at section 113 of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002. This has the effect of permitting a UK-based sponsor to appeal against a decision to refuse a human rights claim for their overseas family member. That is the starting point for future changes to the rules, forms and guidance.
Subsection (2) explains that further amendments are required to the 2002 Act for the clause to operate properly. Those changes are set out in subsections (3) to (7). Subsection (3) makes changes so that a sponsor human rights claim cannot be deemed inadmissible or not suitable to be considered, which is necessary because reforms in the clause mean that the UK sponsor is the applicant, not the overseas individual requiring entry clearance. As I will cover in relation to amendment 95, it would be inappropriate simply to refuse to consider a human rights claim because the UK sponsor is a national of a safe country. Such safeguards are designed to prevent improper protection claims from nationals of those countries.
Subsection (4) makes further changes linked to the fact that the clause makes the sponsor the applicant, not the person overseas. In effect, at appeal, the courts will hear all matters relating to the family member seeking entry to the UK and not include any immigration matters related to the sponsor. Subsection (5) creates an exception so that sponsor human rights claims do not need to have their appeals considered within the timeframe set out in the statute. That is because an individual will not be able to act as a sponsor if they are liable to deportation action.
Subsection (6) prevents a sponsor human rights claim being certified and denied an appeal simply because the UK-based sponsor is entitled to live in a safe state, primarily European countries. That would not be a fair application of the power where a right to family life was being relied on. The clause does not prevent a claim being refused and denied an appeal where the matters under consideration are clearly unfounded, for example because the relationship was a sham. Subsection (7) ensures that sponsor human rights appeals are not treated as abandoned or cancelled because the UK sponsor holds permission to be in the UK. Instead, an appeal is abandoned if the overseas family member is granted leave to enter or remain in the UK.
Melanie Onn
The Minister mentioned sham relationships. Will she clarify who will be eligible to act as a sponsor?
Anna Turley
My hon. Friend makes an important point. Basically, anyone who is a British citizen will be eligible to become a sponsor, I believe. Forgive me, I did not want to mislead her by getting the wrong answer, but yes, I was right: individuals with specified status in the UK, including British citizens, settled persons and those with certain other lawful residence will be able to make a sponsor human rights claim. They will need to establish a genuine family life claim—we will talk about that in more detail in the following clauses—and show that refusal would disproportionately interfere with their article 8 rights. As I said, the reforms do not create a new migration route or entitlement; they simply ensure that human rights claims for those who are settled British citizens, settled persons and those with residence here are raised and considered through the correct process.
I thank the hon. Member for Mid Bedfordshire for tabling amendment 94. It would enable the Home Office to designate a place only when a sponsor human rights claim can be made via statutory instrument subject to the affirmative procedure. The Bill does not require the definition of a designated place to be the subject of regulations, as there are currently no plans to specify the geographical place from where such claims can be made. The focus of article 8 is on whether the individual in the UK making a sponsorship claim has a strong enough claim, not where the family is based. That is because a UK-based sponsor will be expected to make their claim through a paid-for online application. We will use the immigration rules to specify the procedures that applicants must follow to make a sponsor human rights claim. That will allow us to go into the necessary level of technical detail, while retaining flexibility to make changes as we implement the new application process.
Ben Goldsborough (South Norfolk) (Lab)
What is interesting about the subsections that the Minister has gone through is that one of the huge problems we face is the judicialisation of British law, where we see interpretation because the law has been too loose. Will she explain how the steps that we are taking will rein those powers back into the sovereignty of Parliament, so that we have more control and can represent our constituents on the issues that they care about the most?
Anna Turley
My hon. Friend gets to the exact heart of what we are doing with this legislation. Through the build-up of the legal framework, we have been guilty of over-interpreting Strasbourg law. By codifying what we are doing, through this Bill, we are ensuring that we are not going over and above that but are simply complying with our international obligations.
Melanie Onn
Does the Minister have any thoughts about what the fee structure might look like?
Anna Turley
That is an important point. I will be delighted to provide more evidence as we go through due process. We must make sure that they are proportionate and do not push people into poverty, but it is important that we are charging people a fee where they are bringing family members to this country under article 8. For the reasons I have set out, the Government do not support the amendment.
Amendment 112 would require the Home Office to carry out safeguarding checks on individuals who make a sponsor human rights claim and that any information uncovered in these checks is considered when the Home Office determines that claim. I thank the hon. Member for Rutland and Stamford (Alicia Kearns) for raising the importance of safeguarding vulnerable migrants, particularly children and victims of domestic abuse, in this amendment. It is a really important issue and one that will be fully considered in the design and implementation of the application process for sponsor human rights claims. As clause 17 simply paves the way for changing how an entry clearance application relying on article 8 family life can be made, we do not believe this level of detail is required in the primary legislation.
The immigration rules already contain safeguards to protect children coming to the UK to join family members who could put them at risk of harm. However, we will fully consider if additional safeguarding requirements are necessary as we develop the procedural requirements for sponsor human rights claims in the immigration rules, because an important point is made through amendment 112. This is a safeguarding proposal that we would support in principle when the application process is designed. I hope that hon. Members are reassured that our support for the principle is on the record through this Committee.
Ben Goldsborough
I would be keen to hear the Minister expand on the issue of safeguarding particularly for victims of domestic abuse and domestic violence. Can she expand on the action the Government will be taking to protect people from that heinous crime?
Anna Turley
Absolutely. We will of course come on to talk about modern slavery and so on later in the Bill. Protection for vulnerable people is at the heart of what this Bill is about.
Where a UK-based sponsor is young or vulnerable and unable to complete an application, they can give permission to someone else to enter their details, but for those who are vulnerable overseas, existing safeguarding measures are already in place to identify any indicators of coercion, exploitation or trafficking. We will of course consider how these measures can be further strengthened to enhance the identification and management of risk, but our approach ensures that vulnerable individuals are protected while maintaining the integrity of the system, through ensuring the rights of UK-based sponsors are the focus of entry clearance decisions that engage article 8.
We feel that a blanket rule to prevent individuals who have been convicted of these criminal behaviours would not be compatible with the EHCR, which necessitates an individualised assessment, but we are keen to make sure that safeguarding requirements are done through the immigration rules to protect anyone at risk of domestic abuse from their sponsor.
Melanie Onn
I want to press the Minister on this point. I am quite taken with amendment 112, and some of the issues to do with sponsors it raises are incredibly serious. I hear the Minister’s comment about not being explicit in primary legislation, but will she explain in simple details, for my understanding, how we will ensure that nobody convicted of an offence involving domestic abuse, stalking, sexual offending or forced marriage will be able to be a sponsor for the purposes of article 8 claims?
Anna Turley
I share my hon. Friend’s view. When I saw this amendment, I thought the principle was really important. When we come to write the immigration rules, we would absolutely want to make sure that it is at the heart of them. We would not ever want to see someone convicted of domestic violence, anything to do with child protection or any of the issues outlined in the amendment ever being a sponsor to bring anybody into this country. I hope that the Committee is reassured by my placing all of that on record: when the immigration rules come to be written I would hope and expect to see that at the heart of them, with those protections in there.
Joe Robertson
The Minister says that her provision on the core cohabiting family member has been restricted by this definition to tackle the issue of people coming into this country. Can she tell us how many people are currently in the UK with a core cohabiting family member outside the UK? What is that figure so we can understand at least the potential pool of applications?
Anna Turley
I cannot give the hon. Gentleman the figures that he asked for. I gave some initial examples at the start of my introduction about the volumes that we are dealing with. Some 77,000 applications were granted on article 8 grounds last year. We know that 71% of the first-time grants on the basis of article 8 were to individuals who had entered this country illegally and were overstaying. We are keen that this issue forms a core part of the reforms.
Joe Robertson
Could the Minister perhaps provide that figure, either later on this morning or this afternoon, for how many people are in the UK with a cohabiting family member overseas as of today?
Anna Turley
I can absolutely undertake to provide as much information as I can to the Committee on that issue. We may not know how many children somebody has in another country. Unless they have put in an article 8 claim, we would not necessarily know about their family members, so it may be a little difficult for us to predict that. However, I can undertake, and give my commitment to the Committee, that we will do our best to get as close to a figure as we can and to provide that to the Committee.
To continue on the rationale for opposing amendment 112, we already have safeguarding measures in place across the immigration system to identify indicators of coercion, exploitation and trafficking. We will consider whether these measures can be further strengthened to improve the identification and mitigation of risk. Our approach ensures that vulnerable individuals are protected while maintaining the integrity of the system by ensuring that the rights of UK-based sponsors are the focus of entry clearance decisions that engage article 8.
Clause 17 does not exempt human rights claims from the general certification power in section 94 of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002, which applies irrespective of whether the claimant can reside in the listed safe countries. That means that we will be able to prevent appeals by certifying human rights claims that are bound to fail. Although it may be relevant to consider whether the UK-based sponsor is able to reside with a family member abroad, that will be done as part of the substantive article 8 assessment.
Melanie Onn
Will the Minister confirm whether clause 17 will be the way that people who have refugee status are expected to sponsor family members?
Anna Turley
As I set out at the beginning, it will be those who have a settled status. My understanding is that those that have a settled refugee status will be able to apply. Again, I can get confirmation for my hon. Friend on that point.
Amendments 95 and 96 taken together would mean that sponsor human rights claims can be made inadmissible or certified as clearly unfounded in the same way as other human rights claims. Applying section 80A or section 94(3) of the 2002 Act to sponsor human rights claims would preclude, in many cases, a substantive assessment of the claim if the sponsor were a national of, or able to reside in, any of the safe countries listed in the Act. In most cases, it would not be reasonable to refuse to consider a sponsor human rights claim fully, just because the sponsor making it was able to reside in one of those safe countries. For that reason, the Government cannot accept amendment 95.
As the Committee will be aware, I have tabled amendments to part 3 of the Bill to insert a new schedule that provides greater clarity on the Government’s approach to the core protection model. We will debate those amendments and the new schedule later in Committee.
Dr Zubir Ahmed (Glasgow South West) (Lab)
As a matter of record, it is important for my right hon. Friend to outline why the amendments and new schedule have been tabled now and why they were not included in the original Bill. I know my constituents take a keen interest in this matter, as my constituency has one of the highest amounts of asylum seeker housing in the country.
Anna Turley
My understanding is that it was recognised that we want to use this opportunity to ensure that the security in this process is as firm as possible, and we obviously have a fair amount of work to undertake to do that during the swift passage of the Bill. It is about ensuring that this Committee has the opportunity to consider the amendments and new schedule and that they are brought in at the right stage of the Bill. Some of these things take time, but we are keen for the Bill to close as many loopholes as possible.
Without the introduction of new schedule 1 by the Government, amendments 95 and 96 as originally put forward would have the effect of making the nationality of the UK-based sponsor dictate how a sponsor human rights claim was considered. That would also impact British citizens who are dual nationals, even when they were born in the UK and/or are British from birth if they also hold another nationality that is on one of the safe country lists.
Amendment 95 would mean that a British citizen who was born in the UK to British citizen parents but who also has citizenship of an EU member state, for example through their grandparents, would have an application to sponsor a family member to join them in the UK under article 8 declared inadmissible. Ireland is an EU member state and is therefore included within the existing section 80A inadmissibility provisions. That currently means that if an Irish citizen claims asylum in the UK, the claim is declared inadmissible and not substantively considered, but amendment 95 would mean that if an Irish citizen, resident in the UK, sought to sponsor a family member to join them in the UK, relying on article 8, that would be declared inadmissible. In contrast, a British citizen who holds no other nationality, or a citizen of a non-EU country or a country not on the section 80A list who is settled in the UK, would be able to sponsor a family member and rely on article 8 of the ECHR.
The Opposition originally introduced amendment 96, which would have meant that the nationality of a sponsor would dictate whether any article 8 claim would be presumed to be clearly unfounded. Instead, the Government have adopted the amendment, which now removes the exemption for human rights claims, but does so because, within the new schedule 1, it has also repealed the reference to human rights claims in section 94(3) altogether. That means that the nationality of a person will continue to dictate whether there is a presumption that any protected claim that they make is clearly unfounded, but nationality will not create any presumption in respect of non-protected human rights claims.
The Government’s position is that the designation of any country as safe should, quite rightly, relate to protection claims and that article 8 claims based on family or private life will always be person-specific rather than place-specific—a very important difference. The test to clarify the refusal of any claim remains that, without substance, it is bound to fail. That test applies to any claim made by a person of any nationality. Government amendment 96, in conjunction with new schedule 1, does not change the test for certification, but merely removes any presumption of certification for article 8 private or family life claims based on nationality. Government amendments 96, 130 and 131 are consequential and will support the model that the Committee will examine shortly.
Amendment 97 would limit appeal rights to the immigration tribunal to sponsors whose article 8 claim relates to a member of their core cohabiting family, as defined in clause 18. The Government do not think that the amendment would be appropriate. ECHR case law is clear that family life is usually confined to, but can exist outside of, the core cohabiting family.
Blake Stephenson (Mid Bedfordshire) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Stuart.
I thank the Minister for her opening remarks, and indeed for pre-empting and answering some of the questions that I have in my speech. It is almost as if she might have had a spy in my team, looking at the questions that I might ask. For these debates on the ECHR, we perhaps had a dry run yesterday in the first Opposition day debate.
Let me start by saying that the Opposition oppose clause 17—perhaps not a surprise to Members, as we said so in our reasoned amendment on Second Reading—and we will vote against its standing part of the Bill. Our amendments are tabled to test the Government’s reasoning. Some of our points have already been answered by the Minister, but I will go through them for the record. If the Committee decides to keep the clause, we submit that our amendments would limit the damage that it will cause.
Clause 17 is the first clause of part 2 of the Bill, which the Government believe is the answer on article 8 of the ECHR. That makes this the right place to ask the question on which the whole debate on part 2 will turn: does the Bill change what a court must do when someone says that article 8 prevents their removal, or does it simply change what the court should have regard to? I will deal first with clause 17 itself and then with what it tells us about the Bill as a whole.
The clause creates a new statutory category of “sponsor human rights claim”. This would enable someone already situated in the UK to submit an application directly to the Secretary of State, at a location designated by the Secretary of State. Such a claim would assert that refusing a member of their family entry to the UK would breach article 8. Subsection (1)(d) then brings those sponsor claims within the scope of the human rights appeals framework set out in part 5 of the 2002 Act. As the explanatory notes confirm, the effect is that the UK-based sponsor becomes the claimant, with the right to appeal.
As the Minister went through, subsections (3) to (7) then carve out sponsor claims from the provisions that apply to other human rights claims in the 2002 Act. They cannot be declared inadmissible under section 80A of the 2002 Act; they cannot be certified as clearly unfounded under section 94; they sit outside the statutory timeframe in section 86B—I suspect that the civil servants might be looking those up now for the Minister—and there are bespoke rules on pending and abandoned appeals.
The Government are presenting these changes as a tightening of the rules: overseas family members may not claim, because the sponsor must. However, our reasoned amendment on Second Reading set out our concern that the Bill would allow sponsor human rights claims and so enable people outside the UK to enter on human rights grounds. There is nothing in the evidence, nor in what the Minister said in her opening remarks, to convince me that that concern was misplaced, so I have a few points to go through, if I may.
Melanie Onn
Is the shadow Minister’s principal concern that the clause will result in an increase in overseas human rights claims?
Blake Stephenson
Yes, and fundamentally I think the clause is tinkering around the edges with the application of the ECHR. We have been here before; I will come on to this later in my speech. Successive Governments have tried to do this, but my fundamental concern is that the clause will not work.
Let me turn first to the drafting. The explanatory notes say that overseas article 8 applications must be made by the sponsor, but the clause defines a claim as made
“at a place designated by the Secretary of State”.
As the House of Commons Library points out, it deals with the appeal stage; it does not say how claims are lodged in the first place. Minister, where in the Bill is the provision that stops an overseas family member applying? Which places will be designated and by what regulations, rules or guidance?
Who holds the right of appeal today? In written evidence submitted to the Committee, the Bar Council stated:
“Until now, an application for entry clearance to come to the UK had to be made by the person overseas and any appeal against refusal had to be brought by them.”
Clause 17 would now give the UK-based sponsor an appeal of their own. Does the Minister accept that clause 17 introduces a right of appeal that currently does not exist today? If so, how is clause 17 in any way, as she says, tightening the rules?
Secondly, I want to discuss the exemptions. Clause 17 leaves inadmissibility and certification in place for other human rights claims. Why should a sponsor claim be exempt from both? On amendments 95 and 96, I note that the Government have adopted our amendment 96, for which I am grateful. I am sure that they did so for their own good reasons, not just to copy and paste an Opposition amendment. Those amendments were tabled to remove those exemptions. They were probing amendments, but let us assume that amendment 96 probed sufficiently for it to be taken on board by the Government. If the Minister cannot explain to the Committee for what reason a sponsor claim would be treated more favourably than any other human rights claim, the exemptions should go. Perhaps she could address that point on amendment 95 in more detail.
There is a point of drafting to consider in whether the clause actually works at all. Clause 52(5) ties the commencement of clause 17(3) to section 59 of the Illegal Migration Act 2023, and clause 17(5) to section 50 of the Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Act 2025 when it comes fully into force. The Minister may not have the answers to a complicated drafting question, but perhaps during the course of today’s debate, her civil servants might provide an answer. I note that section 50 of the Border Security, Asylum and Immigration Act is not yet in force, and that schedule 1 to this Bill would repeal it. Would the Minister explain how clause 17(5) is meant to commence? If there is an error in drafting, will it be corrected?
I will move on to the interaction with family reunion. Three witnesses in our oral evidence sessions—Vicky Tennant of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, Jon Featonby of the Refugee Council and Angela Afzal of the International Rescue Committee—took views very different from the Opposition on the Bill, but their evidence is relevant as we scrutinise the clause. Ms Tennant told us that the Bill’s presumption of cohabitation
“is a difficult threshold to make”––[Official Report, Immigration and Asylum Public Bill Committee, 15 September 2026; c. 9, Q7.]
in the refugee context, particularly given the suspension of the refugee family reunion route. Mr Featonby estimated that probably 20,000 people have been unable to apply since that route was suspended just over a year ago. Ms Afzal warned that families could be encouraged to resort to smugglers to reunite.
The written evidence goes a bit further. The Immigration Law Practitioners’ Association tells us that the human rights claim
“may be the only realistic remaining path”
for refugee families while the dedicated route is suspended. The Bar Council told us that it will be the “only practical gateway”. The British Red Cross highlights that 12,888 family reunion visas were granted in the year to June 2026, and that the core protection status of cause 21 is expected to carry “no family reunion rights” at all.
Although I draw different conclusions, the dedicated route has been suspended, and the clause creates a statutory sponsor claim with a right to appeal and without safe country filters. The people with expertise in this field who gave evidence expect that it will become the main entry route, so are the Government not simply closing one back door and opening another? What assessment has the Home Office made of those numbers?
David Smith (North Northumberland) (Lab)
It is obviously not on the face of the Bill, but does the hon. Gentleman recognise that the Government’s intention to introduce safe and legal routes would ultimately solve the problem that he is describing, as raised by the witnesses?
Blake Stephenson
I recognise the Government’s intentions. Of course, we are here to talk about the implications of the Bill, but I recognise the hon. Gentleman’s broader point.
The Bar Council also points out that the details of how the sponsor claims will work will be set out in immigration rules, which have not yet been made, although the Minister has referred to them. Will the Government publish the draft rules and the new refugee family reunion rules before Report so that Members of this House can know exactly what they are voting for?
The Library records that roughly 500 people abroad were granted article 8 visas in 2025. How many out-of-country applications and appeals are there each year, and how many do the Government expect there will be under clause 17?
Amendment 97 would at least confine the new right of appeal to the family, which is what the Government say article 8 is about. An appeal against a refused sponsor claim would stand only where the family member was part of the claimant’s core cohabiting family under proposed new section 117AA—that would be a spouse, civil partner, partner, minor child, or the parent of a child sponsor. If the Government truly believe in their own definition in clause 18, why will they not accept that the sponsor’s right of appeal should be limited to that definition?
Amendment 112, in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Stamford, would require the Home Secretary to carry out safeguarding checks before deciding a sponsor claim. Such checks would include whether the sponsor has convictions, protective orders or findings for domestic abuse, stalking, sexual offending or forced marriage, or a history of immigration decisions in which those matters were material. It would also require a consideration of the weight of any risk to the family member, the children or others. If the Government are to create a statutory route in which the sponsor drives the claim, the least they should do is check who the sponsor is.
I thank the Minister for supporting the amendment in principle. She described some of the existing safeguarding measures, which will be strengthened, but I would be grateful if she unpacked that somewhat more to demonstrate the Government’s clear commitment to ensuring that the spirit of the amendment, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Stamford, will be implemented in a way that works in practice, if it is not on the face of the Bill. I ask that for a particular reason. The Minister knows that I have been asking the Home Office quite a lot of written parliamentary questions in recent months, particularly about legal immigration and visa controls. Given the responses that I have been getting, I seriously question whether the systems that the Home Office has in place to monitor, track and oversee the compliance of visa sponsors are fit for purpose. It would be prudent for the Minister to provide comfort to this Committee that there will be better controls for sponsors who use this route.
Professor Singer—who, it is worth noting, is opposed to the Bill—told us that the Court of Appeal’s recent decision in IA and others
“was a very restrictive interpretation of article 8…I do not see the courts taking a particularly liberal approach to article 8.” ––[Official Report, Immigration and Asylum Public Bill Committee, 15 September 2026; c. 61, Q99.]
If that is right, what is the mischief that clause 17 addresses? Is it meant to reverse the Court of Appeal in IA, to codify it, or to do something else? I know that the Minister referred to that particular Court of Appeal case, but I would be grateful if those specific questions could be answered.
Ben Goldsborough
I know that the Opposition place a lot of emphasis on the Lord Wolfson report on leaving the ECHR entirely, but that report states that doing so would terminate part 3 of the UK-EU trade co-operation agreement that was secured by the hon. Gentleman’s party, meaning that we would leave Eurojust, Europol and fast-track expedition frameworks. All that puts us at risk of not being able to manage the immigration system in the fair and transparent way that our constituents want. Does he not agree?
Blake Stephenson
Funnily enough, I do not agree with the hon. Member—shock horror. Lord Wolfson produced an extremely extensive piece of legal advice, running to some 180 pages, which the hon. Member has, I am sure, read from front to back. There are absolutely no legal impediments to us leaving the ECHR, and to do so would resolve the issues before us in the Bill. Some of the matters that he has raised are political rather than legal, in the sense that they can be negotiated politically. The important thing is that we are fair to the British people and that we have an immigration system that they can have confidence in, and we can deliver that only by departing from the ECHR. I do not want to go down rabbit warrens on all the reasons why it is a fantastic policy, but no doubt the hon. Member will ask further questions as we proceed.
The one time Parliament tried to disapply the convention in this area—hon. Members will love to hear the word “Rwanda”, I am sure—was in the Safety of Rwanda (Asylum and Immigration) Act 2024. The provision never took effect and was repealed by the Labour Government in 2025. Government and Parliament must be willing to take steps that require the courts to decide convention cases differently. That is the direction in which the evidence we heard points this Bill Committee.
If the Government will not change the framework and merely ask the courts to “have regard”, part 2 will at best deliver what the Government’s own impact assessment predicts: refusals that do not become removals. Why have the Government not considered giving the courts a direction that they cannot set aside—an exclusive code, for example, or disapplication of the Human Rights Act in this context? If they have considered that but have not moved forward with it, can the Minister explain why it was rejected?
The unfortunate reality for the Bill is that the Government are falling into the same trap as previous Governments: legislation that is well meaning—even well drafted—and designed to circumvent the constraints of the ECHR. The courts will inevitably default to the same positions that they always have, allowing people who have no right to be in this country to stay for longer in the meantime. If, or more likely when, this Bill fails to genuinely empower the Government to deal with the extensive grounds for resisting removal that the various articles of the convention create, will the Minister and other Labour Members finally join us in accepting that the issue here is not how carefully the legislation is drafted but the ECHR itself, and that we cannot have a meaningful conversation about restoring control over our immigration system without taking steps to leave the ECHR?
Blake Stephenson
I am going to close, because I think I have spoken enough and time is pressing on.
Clause 17 creates a new statutory claim for sponsors, and new rights of appeal, which will become the main route for refugee families. It exempts those claims from the safe country filter. Its detail is left to rules that we have not seen, and it commences by reference to provisions that are not yet in force or that the Bill would repeal. Amendment 84, which would have left out the clause, has not been selected, so the Committee will instead decide the matter by voting on whether the clause should stand part of the Bill. For the reasons I have mentioned in this speech, which has gone on far too long, the Opposition will vote against it.
Joe Robertson
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mr Stuart. I am speaking a little earlier than I had expected—I misunderstood the shadow Minister. I thought he was just getting started, but it turns out that he considers his speech on the long side. Just for the record, I do not.
I am going to address the wider issue of whether the Bill, the clause and this set of amendments really do address the issue that the Minister, and indeed the entire Government, want them to. Their intention, as I understand it—I do not think this is controversial, at least given what the Government say they want to do—is to reduce the number of claims, to ensure that claims are genuine and to create efficiencies in the system. Of course, we all have those aims. I think that the Government have made a genuine attempt with the Bill, but as far as I can see, it will fail substantially.
David Smith
I understand the point the hon. Gentleman seeks to make about the potential pool of people, but is that not theoretical? The pool of people around the world who may be refugees is tens of millions. Ultimately, it is up to the Government of this country to determine the criteria for someone to be accepted as a refugee. It seems like a slightly philosophical point, if he does not mind me saying so.
Joe Robertson
I do not accept that it is philosophical. The pool of people in the world who could make an asylum claim runs to hundreds of millions, and possibly billions, because, tragically, a lot of the world is very unsafe and there is a lot of inhumane treatment and activity. As much as our hearts want us to try to improve the lives of those people, we would probably all agree that the UK cannot take in those vast numbers. However, I am addressing the more limited provision that the Government have put forward; I am talking not about the pool of people in the world who may be suffering inhumane or degrading treatment, but about the “core cohabiting” family members overseas who have a family member in the UK who might want to make an application on their behalf under the newly qualified right to a family life in proposed new section 117AA of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002.
Let me turn to the new definition of a core cohabiting family member. Those words might prompt a debate of many hours or days, but the Bill helps us. It tells us that a “core cohabiting family” member of Person A is
“(a) A’s spouse, civil partner or partner;
(b) where A is a parent, A’s children who are under the age of 18;
(c) where A is under the age of 18, A’s parents.”
That makes sense: we are talking about children, parents, partners or civil partners. However, if we take the example of a civil partner, the provision would, as I understand it, allow someone in the UK—remember, that person may not be a British citizen, but someone who has a right to be here—to make an application to bring their civil partner, who is living outside the UK, into the UK, on the basis that to do anything else would be to infringe their right to a family life.
The Minister said pointedly that the focus is on the claim made by the person already here and their circumstances, rather than on the person outside the UK, but we know the circumstances of the person in the UK making such an application for their civil partner. Their family circumstances are that they are living a family life in two different countries; that is the pre-existing arrangement when they make the application. To most of us, though not everyone, that might seem unusual, but those are the circumstances. I do not understand why, if we have a system based on the circumstances of someone who has made an application, that application should seek to rearrange their family life and say, “We’re no longer happy to live in two different countries; we want to live in the same country—and, by the way, that same country must be the UK and not the other country.”
This provision does not seem to be person-focused at all; it seems to have been drafted in effect, almost as of right, to allow someone’s civil partner into the UK. If we run the argument the other way and say, “Of course two civil partners should be able to live together in the same country and, indeed, in the same household. Isn’t that what a right to a private family life means?”, the case will be won by the sponsor making the application, because they will say, “How can you possibly expect me to live in a separate country to my civil partner? That is inhumane and unfair. You wouldn’t expect it of an ordinary citizen in the UK, so why do you expect it of me? It is discriminatory. It is against the provisions in the Human Rights Act and the ECHR,” and so on. It seems to me that all those cases will be won on that basic assertion, and that what this provision really does is allow someone to bring in their civil partner in all circumstances, as of right.
Indeed, it may be worse than that. If that is in effect what is happening, we may as well say it, but what we have here is law that will be contested in court. If the Government contest each case, that will lead to a huge administrative process and a huge court backlog and appeals issues, just to end up with a set of decisions that all say the same thing: “Yes, of course, that overseas partner can come in.”
Setting that aside—and that is the most certain part of the provision, even though I argue that it is inherently uncertain and that it does not achieve its objectives—there are other circumstances set out in the provision in which someone does not need to be a core cohabiting family member. Proposed new section 117AA(1) says that the provision is “normally limited” to a core cohabiting family member, so there will be abnormal situations in which someone can come into this country even if they are not a core cohabiting family member. That, surely—obviously—is the gateway for Strasbourg jurisprudence. I acknowledge the Minister’s honesty when she said earlier that we—and by “we” I think she meant the British state rather than her Government particularly—as a country have been guilty of over-interpreting Strasbourg law, but that provision in her Government’s Bill is the gateway for Strasbourg law to be applied in the ordinary way that it has been over years, and that is the issue we are trying to tackle.
The Bill gives us some help on what constitutes an abnormal situation—a situation where a non-core cohabitant family member could come in. To quote proposed new section 117AA(4)(b) of the 2002 Act, that is where
“the circumstances are such that there is an additional element of dependency”
between two family members. But there could be an additional element of dependency between anyone residing in the UK and a family member overseas. Let us remember that we are not talking about core cohabitants now; we are talking about any family member. That could be a cousin, uncle, aunt, second cousin or third cousin—who knows?
Who will decide whether there is an additional element of dependency? Well, it will be based on the facts. The applicant will have to present a whole set of circumstances, including the family relationship that existed before anyone ever got to the UK and how much it meant to them emotionally or financially: “Yes, normally third cousins are not close and interdependent, but you must understand the culture where I am from. We had a relationship that was more like brother and sister or husband and wife, and therefore I should be successful.”
Who will decide that? It will be the bureaucratic infrastructure of the state, which is already overburdened, be it the Home Office, which typically makes a decision that gets overturned, a new system of judges appointed on the advice of the Home Office, or the existing appeal structure all the way up through the Court of Appeal, the Supreme Court and the interpretation of Strasbourg jurisprudence, including the Human Rights Act and the fundamentals of the ECHR. All the things that currently challenge our ability to say no are brought in or retained by this provision. Even if a number of claims are unsuccessful—and I am sure a number will be—the number of cases that will go through the courts to establish their success or otherwise will continue to overburden the system and give everyone at least the hope that they might be successful, even in hopeless cases.
I say as a former lawyer—not a human rights lawyer or one who has been involved in this type of case—that this sort of provision is a gift to the world of ongoing litigation. Legal professionals try to construct a strong case with new legislation, as is their legitimate role. There is nothing like a bit of new legislation for the legal profession to get their teeth into. They try to create new case law to interpret it and find out what it is all about. Very often, litigation increases rather than decreases, at least in the short to medium term, when a novel provision like this one is introduced.
An abnormal, or not normal, family situation is not defined, but there are a few examples of an abnormal situation where an applicant would be successful. To paraphrase proposed new section 117AA(5)(b)(i) to (iii) of the 2002 Act—we can see just how complicated the Bill has become to try to achieve an aim that I do not think it will—one example is where there is mental illness in the person who is outside the UK, and care and support would need to be provided by the person in the UK. An application is therefore likely to be successful if the sponsor in the UK says: “My family member who is not in the UK”—they do not have to be a core cohabiting family member; they just have to be family, whatever that means—“has a mental illness.” Presumably whether they have a mental illness or not will be judged by a healthcare system outside the UK, which might be very different from our own, with a very different standard of what counts as a diagnosis. “That person has a mental illness and there is no care or support available to them other than me, a family member in the UK.” Again, they might be in a country with a health service that, almost universally, does not provide sufficient care and support to people with mental illness. That could, in reality, be quite an easy application to make.
Melanie Onn
The hon. Member has spent a long time focusing on clause 18. I wonder whether he is going to repeat his comments when we come to the next group of amendments.
Joe Robertson
I shall speak to the next group when the time comes. I do not make any apology for focusing on what I see as a major flaw in the legislation. I do not have a political disagreement with the Government; I just think that what they are trying to do is not achieved by this provision. I am certainly not here to give an overall appraisal of the Bill or of this group. That is for the Minister and the shadow Minister. As a Back Bencher, I am here to try to examine, explore and understand what I see as a weakness in the Bill. That is my job in Committee.
Melanie Onn
The hon. Gentleman is clearly misunderstanding, because this is not what we are meant to be discussing right now.
Joe Robertson
I have it right in front of me. I think the wider points have been made. The hon. Member is obviously desperate to make the decisions that a Chair would ordinarily make. Maybe one day she will be elevated to the position of chairing a Committee. If she would like me to repeat everything I have said, I will be happy to do so in this afternoon’s sitting.
I am slightly reluctant to stop now, because it looks like I have wilted in the face of an intervention from the Government Benches, but I had come to the end of my contribution. I hope I have made my point, even if it is not agreed with.
Anna Turley
I thank the hon. Members for Mid Bedfordshire and for Isle of Wight East for their very thorough comments. For me, this absolutely explains the benefit of line-by-line discussion of a Bill. There have been important challenges and critiques, and I will do my best to answer as many as I can—I think the shadow Minister must have had more than 20 or 25 questions; I will endeavour to write to him and the Committee on any that I accidentally overlook.
I really appreciated the statements from the hon. Member for Isle of Wight East, but I think my hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes was right: he did stray into clause 18, which we will come to this afternoon. I took note of his views and look forward to responding to some of those later.
There is a lot to cover, so I will do my best to race through it. We will have a longer conversation this afternoon about the ECHR, so I will not pre-empt my comments on that. I do want to push back on the accusation that the legislation will not make a difference. At the moment, we have a free-for-all. Courts are basically over-interpreting Strasbourg. There is no real codification in this country of what the right to a family life means, and we are seeing a huge number of cases, as we have discussed. The point of the Bill is to ensure that our provisions will be no different to the position under Strasbourg but will realign the domestic position, because we are currently being far more generous than our international obligations require. I think the Committee can agree that it is important that we do not over-interpret what Strasbourg suggests.
I appreciated the challenge from the shadow Minister about the 2014 Act and not reinforcing any previous errors, but the Government provisions reflect more up-to-date case law, which was not captured by that 2014 Act—for example, the weighting provisions, which will apply to all of family life. I hope, and am sure, that we will have more success than the 2014 Act had.
Melanie Onn
The Minister refers to the UK having gone above and beyond its requirements in relation to Strasbourg law. In bringing us into line and not overextending ourselves, I wonder whether there are any other countries with which we could compare ourselves, in terms of where we will find that line and alignment. That might assist us in understanding how this process will work in practice.
Anna Turley
I appreciate my hon. Friend raising that point. We have become a country with pull factors that have encouraged people to this country while asylum claims have been going down across Europe. Ours have not been going down at the same pace, and I think our over-interpretation of some of the Strasbourg laws has been a pull factor. So I appreciate her raising that.
I have quite a lot to plough through, so I apologise if there is not a coherent thread to some of these answers. I will try to respond as quickly as possible to as many of the questions as I can. I remind the Committee that, just because family life is established, that does not necessarily mean that the individual will automatically be able to remain in or enter the UK. All cases where family life is found to exist will be considered at the second-stage test, where the courts will have to consider whether it is in the public interest to refuse leave to remain or enter. We will come to the issues that were referred to about mental illness and so on this afternoon, but I am trying to make the point that the partner will still need to meet those substantive tests.
On the family circumstances that we discussed, the vast majority of people seeking to bring a partner will have to meet the rules. That means minimum income and English language. The example that the hon. Member for Isle of Wight East gave almost certainly would not meet the bar of a successful article 8 claim, unless there were extremely exceptional circumstances.
On the hon. Member’s point about volumes and numbers, I am struggling to understand what he is asking me to do. Anyone in this country who has a family member outside the UK could put in an appeal for this. There is absolutely no way we could know whether anyone in this room may have a child, a dependant or anyone in another country; that is simply not evidence or information that this country would keep.
Joe Robertson
If the Minister’s position ends up being that there is no data, I will take that. To be clear, I am asking for the data of people residing in the UK who have a family member who is not a British citizen and who has no right to be in the UK, be they a spouse, civil partner or child. If it is the case that we simply do not have that data, obviously I will accept that, but the question remains on the table.
Anna Turley
I completely appreciate where the hon. Gentleman is coming from, because I know he wants to get a sense of how many people could and would apply, but it would be impossible for us to know without knowing the family circumstances of everyone in the country. What we can do is best extrapolate from the applications that have been made as to whether they would fail or pass our new tests. I reassure him that it will be a high bar; the majority will be refused if they and their overseas family members do not meet the rules. Article 8 is a safeguard—that is what the Bill maintains—not a gateway.
The shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Mid Bedfordshire, referenced the publishing of the modelling. He referred to the representative sample of 3,252 article 8-related applications. That is an internal sample that has not been published due to personal data sensitivities, but I commit to write to set out our data on article 8 for the Committee.
Siân Berry (Brighton Pavilion) (Green)
I am afraid I still cannot find the updated impact assessment, either on the website, by email or on the table in this Committee Room. I would very much like to see the new information that the Minister referred to yesterday.
Anna Turley
I appreciate that. I believe the updated impact assessment has been published, but I will double-check. If it has not been published on the website, I am sure that the Clerks or someone in administration will be able to deal with that.
I want to draw out some of the figures from the impact assessment. There is to be an additional 3,600 removals a year. We have tried to be realistic and transparent in the impact assessment. We say that there will be 11,700 additional refusals a year. When applied to the net lifetime fiscal cost per applicant, 11,700 applicants would cost the taxpayer more than £1.7 billion, which is a considerable amount. I am sure hon. Members can understand why we are trying to do what we are doing through the Bill.
We took a deep-dive cohort analysis to examine the representative sample that I mentioned of 3,252 article 8-related applications. That was to support our policy development. I am afraid that further details of the cohort analysis from the unpublished internal sample will not be available due to personal data considerations, as I mentioned, but I appreciate the importance of further analysis. I have noted that, and we will bring that to the Committee.
A question was asked about what assessment has been made of the potential merits of disapplying the Human Rights Act to immigration matters. I remain committed to ensuring that our broader human rights framework is fit for the challenges of today, but there are currently no plans to amend the Human Rights Act. We do not have to withdraw from the ECHR—I will discuss that further this afternoon—or disapply the Human Rights Act to create meaningful reform. We are reviewing our approach to ECHR implementation within the immigration system; that is the intention of the Bill.
Articles 8 and 3 address different harms and legal thresholds. We do not expect the reforms to generate an increase in successful article 3 claims. There will be no new rights or entitlements that will make it any easier for people to apply. Indeed, we are codifying the restrictions in the clauses we will discuss this afternoon. Sponsors will still need to demonstrate a very high bar for their family to be able to join them in the UK on the basis of article 8.
The Government are keeping under review whether and how to commence the inadmissibility provisions in section 59 of the Illegal Migration Act 2023, which amended section 88 of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2022 to include human rights claims. However, those provisions would not be applied to sponsored human rights claims, as in most cases it would not be reasonable to declare a claim inadmissible just because the sponsor could reside in one of the listed safe countries. Clause 17 can be commenced without that, and we can write to Members further with the details.
Immigration and Asylum Bill (Sixth sitting)
(1 day, 9 hours ago)
Public Bill CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 3 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 3 / Noes: 8 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 3 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 8 / Noes: 4 - Question accordingly agreed to.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 3 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 3 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 3 / Noes: 9 - Question accordingly negatived.
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 11 / Noes: 1 - Question accordingly agreed to.
The Chair
I remind the Committee that with this we are discussing the following:
Government amendment 131.
Amendment 94, in clause 17, page 14, line 8, at end insert
“, provided that the Secretary of State may only designate a place by regulations made by statutory instrument and that such a statutory instrument may only be made if a draft of the instrument has been laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.”
This amendment would require the place at which sponsor human rights claims may be made to be set by regulations subject to the affirmative procedure.
Government amendment 96.
Amendment 97, in clause 17, page 15, line 4, at end insert—
“(8) In section 82 (right of appeal to the Tribunal), after subsection (1) insert—
“(1ZA) An appeal does not lie under subsection (1)(b) against a decision to refuse a sponsor human rights claim unless the family member to whom the claim relates would, if they lived with the person who made the claim, be a member of that person’s core cohabiting family within the meaning of section 117AA(2).””
This amendment would confine the new sponsor right of appeal to claims relating to a spouse, civil partner, partner or minor child (or, for a child sponsor, a parent), in line with the Government’s own definition of the core cohabiting family in clause 18.
Clause stand part.
Amendment 130 agreed to.
Amendment made: 131, in clause 17, page 13, line 33, leave out paragraph (b).—(Anna Turley.)
See the explanatory statement for amendment 130.
Amendment proposed: 94, in clause 17, page 14, line 8, at end insert
“, provided that the Secretary of State may only designate a place by regulations made by statutory instrument and that such a statutory instrument may only be made if a draft of the instrument has been laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.”—(Blake Stephenson.)
This amendment would require the place at which sponsor human rights claims may be made to be set by regulations subject to the affirmative procedure.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Blake Stephenson (Mid Bedfordshire) (Con)
I beg to move amendment 98, in clause 18, page 15, line 14, leave out from “must” to end of line 15 and insert
“must determine that question in accordance with section 117AA.”
This amendment would require courts and tribunals to decide whether Article 8 is engaged in accordance with new section 117AA, rather than only to have regard to it.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
Amendment 99, in clause 18, page 15, line 21, leave out “normally”.
This amendment, with Amendments 101 and 102, would remove the word “normally” from new section 117AA so that family life for the purposes of Article 8 is limited to the core cohabiting family and the other relationships specified, without an open-ended qualification.
Amendment 100, in clause 18, page 15, line 25, at end insert
“(but only where A and the partner have lived together in a relationship akin to marriage or civil partnership for at least two years)”.
This amendment would require a partner who is not a spouse or civil partner to have lived with the person in a relationship akin to marriage or civil partnership for at least two years to count as part of the core cohabiting family.
Government amendment 44.
Amendment 101, in clause 18, page 15, line 30, leave out “normally”.
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 99.
Government amendment 45.
Amendment 102, in clause 18, page 15, line 33, leave out “normally”.
This amendment is consequential on Amendment 99.
Amendment 103, in clause 18, page 16, line 17, leave out subsection (6).
This amendment would remove the provision allowing the factors excluded by new section 117AA(5) to be considered at the public interest stage, to test whether subsection (6) undoes the effect of subsection (5).
Clause stand part.
Blake Stephenson
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Twigg.
Clause 18 is at the heart of part 2 of the Bill, and is where the Government set out for the first time in statute, as we heard earlier, what counts as family life for the purposes of article 8 of the European convention on human rights. Other than the fact that the Conservatives would withdraw from the ECHR to implement our borders plan, allow me to say at the outset that the Opposition do support the broad direction of travel of the clause. The public are entitled to expect that the right to respect for family life protects genuine, close family relationships and does not stretch to cover extended relationships and loosely evidenced dependency, which is the very problem that the Government’s explanatory notes identify. In my opinion, the question for the Committee is not whether the clause points the right way; it is whether it will make any difference at all in the courtroom. On the evidence the Committee has heard and read so far, I fear the answer is unfortunately that it will make very little difference.
Clause 18 does three things. First, subsection (3) inserts a two-stage sequence into section 117A of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002. A court or tribunal must first decide whether article 8 is engaged at all, having regard in particular to proposed new section 117AA, and only then turn to the public interest question. Secondly, clause 18(4) inserts proposed new section 117AA into the 2002 Act. A person’s family life is normally limited to their core cohabiting family: a spouse, civil partner or partner and minor children or parents, to the extent that they live together. A parent who does not live with a child does not normally have family life with that child unless there is evidence of a genuine and subsisting parental relationship, and an adult does not normally have family life with another adult unless they live together as partners or there is an additional element of dependency beyond normal emotional ties.
Thirdly, clause 18(5) lists four things that, on their own, do not amount to that additional dependency: financial dependence; illness, unless it meets a three-part test of constant care; emotional resilience; and concern for a relative living in a country affected by war or instability. Subsection (6) then provides that nothing in subsection (5) stops the court considering those same factors when it comes to the public interest question.
Why is the direction right? There is a real problem here. Mr Smith, the former director general of Border Force, told the Committee that article 8 is
“often used as a lever quite late in the process”,––[Official Report, Immigration and Asylum Public Bill Committee, 15 September 2026; c. 44, Q67.]
as we all know from the cases we hear about on the news.
The Minister gave the Committee an example from Home Office casework of a man who falsely claimed paternity of eight children and was sentenced to six years’ imprisonment. Families, of course, take many forms, and nobody on this side of the Committee wishes to deny that. However, the law should be clear that the core of family life is the family that lives together, and that anything beyond it must be proved. We support the principle of the clause, but we have been here before—I refer to the debate on clauses in group 14 and the many good speeches made—with the immigration rules in 2012 and the Immigration Act 2014. I want to test whether this clause will succeed where those attempts did not.
First, on the language, proposed new section 117AA to the 2002 Act does not say that family life is limited to the core cohabiting family; it says that it is “normally” limited to it. The same word appears in subsections (3) and (4). Professor Ekins told us that this word is where the litigation will end up turning. Justice, which opposes this part of the Bill, makes the same point from the other side: its written evidence accepts that the use of “normally”, together with the need only to “have regard” to those considerations,
“preserves the possibility of finding family life beyond these prescribed circumstances.”
I ask the Minister: in what circumstances do the Government expect a court to find family life outside the core cohabiting family, and will that be set out anywhere? If the Government cannot say, why is the word “normally” there at all? Amendments 99, 101 and 102 would remove it.
Secondly, let us look at the duty itself. Proposed new subsection (1B) to section 117A says that the court
“must (in particular) have regard to”
section 117AA. It does not say that the court must apply it—that matters. In Rhuppiah, a case mentioned in the previous sitting, the Supreme Court held that the “have regard” formula in the 2014 Act
“cannot put decision-makers in a strait-jacket”.
As was mentioned earlier, Chris Rowe of Swansea University, writing for the UK Constitutional Law Association, described the device as “insufficiently potent” to force a result incompatible with the convention. Clause 18 uses exactly the same device. What in proposed new subsections (1A) to (1C) to section 117A differs in kind from the formula that the Supreme Court has already held cannot bind? Amendment 98 would replace “have regard to” with a requirement that the court determine the question in accordance with proposed new section 117AA.
Proposed new section 117AA(5) tells the court that financial dependence, illness, emotional reliance and concern for a relative in a war zone do not, on their own, create family life. Subsection (6) tells the court that it may consider every one of those factors when it weighs the public interest. The Immigration Law Practitioners’ Association adds that the Bill is silent on whether those factors may be combined when the court decides whether there is an additional element of dependency, and that the Strasbourg court, in Kumari and Martinez Alvarado, allows exactly that. If the court reads a combination test into paragraph (4)(b) to keep the clause compatible, the list in subsection (5) will do very little work. What is subsection (6) for, if not to give back at the second stage what subsection (5) takes away at the first? Amendment 103 would leave it out, to test exactly that.
The central question is whether clause 18 changes the law. The Government’s human rights memorandum says that proposed new section 117AA codifies the Strasbourg principles on the existence of family life. The House of Commons Library notes that the Strasbourg court has itself said, in Kumari v. the Netherlands, that family life is
“normally limited to the core family”,
and it records Professor Singer’s view on the clause’s effect, that
“it is unclear how this would differ significantly from current practice”.
However, the Law Society tells this Committee that the new emphasis on cohabitation is
“a significant move away from the current position in UK law and a substantial narrowing of Article 8 protections.”
Justice says the clause
“falls short of codifying the Strasbourg principles on the existence of family life, despite the Government’s assertion to the contrary in its ECHR memorandum”,
in particular for
“young adults who are still living with their parents”.
Ben Goldsborough
As the hon. Member very kindly name-checked my speech yesterday, I need to thank him first of all. He says there is no issue of “Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels” when leaving the ECHR, but there is an issue concerning our colleagues and friends on the island of Ireland. What would be the result of leaving the ECHR when it comes to the Good Friday agreement? There is no question about it: Lord Wolfson may say that there may or may not be an issue with that, but the Irish Human Rights and Equality Commission has noted that there would be an issue, and we have the history as well. Anything that comes back with this idea that, “Well, Australia and New Zealand don’t operate within these systems,” does not take into account the history of the island of Ireland.
Blake Stephenson
I thank the hon. Member for his intervention—perhaps my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight East was correct to say that I was far too generous in taking it; I should have just closed my speech.
The hon. Member for South Norfolk clearly recognises that the Opposition commissioned Lord Wolfson to conduct a very serious legal analysis of the benefits or otherwise of leaving the ECHR, which he has done. I go back to the comment I made earlier about how there are no legal barriers to us departing the ECHR. There is no risk to the Union and there is no risk to the Good Friday agreement in a legal sense. It will, of course, result in a political discussion, and that will be had at the appropriate time, but the political questions that will arise are not insurmountable.
I will now close. The Opposition support the aim of clause 18 and will not oppose it standing part of the Bill. We support Government amendments 44 and 45, but a definition that is qualified by “normally” applied through a duty only to “have regard to”, with the excluded factors let back in by clause 18(6), is a definition that the courts can step around. I will seek to press amendments 98 and 99 to a Division.
Siân Berry (Brighton Pavilion) (Green)
It is a pleasure to have you in the Chair today, Mr Twigg.
I take completely the opposite position from the hon. Member for Mid Bedfordshire in almost every respect. I am going to speak against clause 18 and its inclusion in the Bill, and I am going to oppose the Government amendments that would put further tests on parent-child relationships and parental involvement for refugees. I will also be opposing the Conservative amendments, which would put even tighter constraints on family life.
I am here to defend our article 8 protections—I say “our”, because I believe it is really important that we set laws for refugees and asylum seekers that we would happily be subject to ourselves. That is absolutely at the core of the universal nature of human rights and the international agreements we have made to respect human rights around the world in the way that we would want them to be respected should we be in the horrible position of needing to claim asylum.
Article 8 protects the right to family life specifically for us under the European convention on human rights. Although it is not absolute, it requires any state interference in these rights to be lawful, necessary and proportionate. I do not agree with the Government when they say in their human rights memorandum that they are taking
“proportionate means of achieving the legitimate aims.”
To me, paragraph 26 in the memorandum clearly admits that there is interference in our rights with this legislation. The Government are using the argument that they are taking “proportionate means” of “achieving the legitimate aims”, but the legitimate aims they lay out are:
“maintaining effective immigration control, economic wellbeing and the prevention of disorder or crime.”
I honestly do not see how clause 18, on family life and people making claims for reuniting their families and maintaining this essential human right protected under article 8, comes into those “proportionate means”. It is about reducing the ability of families to reunite. The impact assessment clearly says that many thousands of people who would be able to come here under current laws will be denied their claims. This is a reduction in human rights and it seriously needs looking at. I am neither equipped nor planning to add further arguments relating to Northern Ireland and the Windsor framework, but further conversations are needed about what is currently in the Bill, never mind what would happen if we withdrew from the ECHR.
Everybody on the Committee wants a fair, robust and effective immigration system—one that works and upholds the rule of law and on in which people have confidence. Article 8 is not an abstract concept within all this; it is the law that decides whether a parent can stay in the country where their children live or whether a British child grows up with both parents. We do not want to see families separated or children separated from the parents who care for them, yet that is precisely the risk posed by clause 18, according to the Government’s own impact assessment.
Dr Zubir Ahmed (Glasgow South West) (Lab)
Does the hon. Lady accept that article 8 was never intended to be interpreted as it is now, and therefore that if we do not provide guidance or adjust it, we will further dampen the British public’s confidence and trust in the immigration and asylum system? I can tell her from personal experience that when that happens, it is people from minority communities that are already here, sometimes for many generations, such as my father, who are first in the firing line. Does she therefore agree that if she, like me, wants Britain to be a compassionate, welcoming country, we must acknowledge that those articles are in some cases not being interpreted in the intended manner and that the adjustment is appropriate?
Siân Berry
I thank the hon. Member for his perspective. He must appreciate through his constituency casework, as I do, the general principle that article 8 claims need to be assessed on an individual basis. The Bill tries to codify and generalise things in ways that reduce the ability for anyone making decisions to look at the genuine family lives of those making the claims. Bad decisions can result from people misunderstanding different cultures, from unconscious biases and from all kinds of things like that. It is really important that we do not try to prescribe family life under state definitions. I will come on to talk more about that and about the toxic rhetoric and the awful anecdotes, such as the examples we have heard from Ministers, which increase the toxicity of the debate. We can do much better than this Bill to reduce that.
Clause 18 would replace the reality of family relationships with statutory presumptions. Families today come in many forms. We have single-parent households, blended families, grandparents raising children, and parents who do not live under the same roof through circumstance rather than choice. A family does not stop being a family because it fails a cohabitation test. I will always stand up against people trying to define what a normal family is. The Government’s stated objective is to confine family life “normally” to the core cohabiting family unit. A parent who does not live with their child must prove that the relationship is genuine and be judged on how often and how recently they have had contact, even where work, shared care or the immigration system itself has kept them apart.
Ben Goldsborough
If we followed the hon. Lady’s line of thinking, my concern is that we would leave section 117B of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 completely unamended, which would mean that there is no clarity—not just for the state and our constituents, but for those going into the system who may be seeking refuge. Is there not also a moral case? If we leave this be, we will end up in a muddle, which will mean that backlogs continue to grow, people do not get the surety of an answer and the immigration and asylum system will not have the confidence of the public.
Siân Berry
I thank the hon. Member for making those points, but as we spoke about on Second Reading and in earlier debates on this topic, the muddle lies in the bad initial decision making in the Home Office. If it is not clear what kind of evidence people need to establish family life, it should be dealt with through better processes, better information and more support for legal representation. Codifying it, as is done in the Bill, is not the right way to deal with that.
David Smith
I thank the hon. Lady for being so generous with her time. I want to build on the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for South Norfolk. The hon. Lady spoke about the Bill referring to core cohabiting family, but does she accept that there must at some point be a limit on what we define as family? If I were fleeing to another country, would it be reasonable for me to say, “I desperately want my third great uncle on my mum’s side to be part of my family”? Does she accept that there has to be a definition and parameters for what family actually is, which the Bill seeks to establish?
Siân Berry
I disagree wholly with that. During the speeches made by Opposition Members earlier in the debate, I kept thinking about the people who, due to natural disasters or wars, are left without core family, and have to find another family member who will take them in and take that place. There is an inherent danger in putting in place these limits, and in the amendments tabled by Conservative Members that would add rigid definitions. Given the stories about the different ways in which people have experienced refugee status over the years, which all hon. Members will have heard about in casework and read about in memoirs and novels, the need for this change does not ring true. We should keep the system as it is now, where the reality of every single case needs to be looked at.
Blake Stephenson
The hon. Lady described our amendments as “rigid definitions”, but is it not right that we as legislators make sure that our definitions have certainty? We want to have a system that the British public have confidence in, and that is not the case at the moment—in good faith, the Government are trying to deal with that. Do we not need rigid definitions and certainty to achieve that?
Siân Berry
I fundamentally disagree with the hon. Member. We need to look at individual cases individually, as no two families are the same. We could imagine many circumstances for which we would want exceptions to this rule. The Government have rightly left caveats in the Bill, but the Opposition are arguing against them. Putting in rigid criteria on top of what is already in the Bill is absolutely the wrong way to go about addressing the issue. The best way to deal with any problems we might see is to do so in the initial decision making.
Clause 18 says that financial or emotional dependence, illness, or living in a conflict zone alone is not enough to establish family life, yet families routinely support each other financially, emotionally and practically. Ministers say that those factors can still be weighed at the public interest stage, but once family life is ruled out, that stage is never reached. What will that mean in practice? As I have hinted at, the Government’s impact assessment says that their article 8 reforms will mean 14,000 more refusals every year. Even after appeals, around 11,700 people more will be refused each year. Under the law as it stands, those people would succeed. That shows that clause 18 does not simply clarify existing principles, but is intended to change outcomes at a substantial scale. The clause does diminish human rights for refugees in this country, as is admitted in the Government’s human rights memorandum.
The way the clause is doing that is very troubling for two main reasons. First, it suggests that family relationships deserve protection only when they fit a model chosen by the state, but article 8 has never worked that way. The European Court has always looked at the substance of an individual relationship, not its form. Indeed, the very cases the Government cite require an individualised assessment of all the circumstances. As the hon. Member for Mid Bedfordshire said, we have been here before. The examples we are hearing from the Home Secretary and the Minister come as part of what is now a mini-tradition of Home Secretaries using exaggerated anecdotes to add to toxic rhetoric about migrants.
Blake Stephenson
This might be an opportune moment to intervene and allow the hon. Lady to get to the right place in her notes. She mentioned that we have been here before; that was a central part of my speech. In order to break this cycle, would she not agree that the right thing to do is to depart from the ECHR?
Siân Berry
I thank the hon. Member for trying, but he is talking to a person who cannot read the universal declaration of human rights without welling up, and I will never give up making arguments of this sort.
Previous legislation on these matters, to which the hon. Member for Mid Bedfordshire referred, followed on directly from the infamous 2011 party conference speech of the then Home Secretary—now Baroness May of Maidenhead. She repeated false claims from newspapers that judges had permitted a man to escape deportation because he had a pet cat—something she says she did not make up. In reality, neither of the judges’ decisions in the case was based on the man having a pet, and the second and final decision was not based on any human rights consideration at all. It was straightforwardly based on a failure by the Home Office to apply its own policy.
Amnesty International gave us more information in its written evidence:
“This—together with the readiness of many political commentators to cherry pick often minor or irrelevant facts that are mentioned in tribunal or court judgments and present these as if the main or sole reason for a decision that may have little or nothing to do with them—continues to underpin criticism of Article 8 in immigration-related decision-making. That criticism is plainly misinformed, often careless and, in some cases, on its face, clearly ill-intended—including out of dogmatic hostility to the ECHR and other political motivations.”
On Second Reading of the Bill, the current Home Secretary summarised an unnamed case. She said:
“In 2025, an Albanian man jailed for growing cannabis escaped deportation not because he had any right to be here, but because it was deemed unduly harsh on his partner to deport him. She was not his wife or life partner—instead, this relationship began only after a deportation order had been served. Why was the deportation deemed to be unduly harsh? The partner spoke no Albanian and had never visited the country before.”—[Official Report, 13 July 2026; Vol. 789, c. 675.]
Ben Goldsborough
I thank the hon. Lady, who is being very generous with her time. It is important for us to hammer home that, through the Bill, we are passing legislation for all eventualities. I wish that everyone coming here was squeaky clean and had the best intentions in the world, but we have to pass legislation that takes those with bad motivations into account. Will she respond to that?
Siân Berry
Yes, I will respond to that shortly with some data.
To return to the anecdote from the current Home Secretary, Amnesty again corrects the record:
“A key error in this summary is the statement that the relevant relationship had only begun after a deportation order had been served. That is not correct. The judge’s decision makes clear that it began significantly before the order. Of especial relevance was that the notice that such an order might be made was served in December 2019, but no order was then made for more than four years. By the time it was made in January 2024, the relationship had developed over a relatively lengthy period.”
The Home Secretary mentioned the criminal conviction. Amnesty also corrects that information. It says that he was jailed for four months for a relatively minor offence, and was now
“working lawfully and supporting himself.”
It also says:
“There was no suggestion of any risk of reoffending. His partner, who had no connection and had never been to Albania, was working and providing daily support to her sister and mother. Whatever may have been the position in 2019 was clearly not the position in 2024; and the relevant facts were clearly not adequately presented in what had been reported or at Second Reading.”
Melanie Onn (Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes) (Lab)
The hon. Lady says that this is not a way to reform the system. Does she have any ideas about the kinds of reform that she would be ready to accept?
Siân Berry
I have said that, based on my own casework, my experience of the Home Office’s errors, and the cases that I have seen, I would like to see investment in Home Office decision making to make it better in the first place. That would be the best way to deal with this issue, particularly when more than half of appeals are being approved.
Melanie Onn
I thank the hon. Lady for giving way once again. Given the number of amendments she has tabled—the point being that she will not support any element of change whatsoever—I gently and respectfully suggest that she is actually very happy with the system as it is, she is happy to accept all the evidence from a huge industry that exists to support immigrants, migrants, refugees and asylum seekers, and she does not want any reform whatsoever other than throwing the system open even further.
Siân Berry
It is pretty clear that I think the Bill is a result of the Government responding to toxic rhetoric coming from other parties, and that it is an attempt to be seen to be doing something.
Siân Berry
I will finish my point. In an evidence session, we challenged the National Crime Agency on the roots of the organised crime that the hon. Member for Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes mentions, which is doing huge harm. I will not argue that the small boats system is the best way to bring people to this country. Small boat numbers started to grow the moment safe routes were closed. We need safe routes, and that is the approach the Government could take to reduce small boat crossings. The law that protects our rights does not need to be undermined. I would absolutely argue that.
Blake Stephenson
The hon. Lady refers to other parties and their toxic rhetoric. Perhaps she could give some examples. If she wishes to call out those parties, will she do so by giving clear examples rather than by making throwaway comments? That would really help the Committee.
Siân Berry
I am happy to clarify that I am talking primarily about Reform UK. That party is not represented on this Committee and can answer for itself in other ways, but it has, until recently, been taking votes from the Government on the right. I am happy to come back in future sittings with further examples of anecdotes being used instead of evidence. I chose to highlight two examples of Home Secretaries doing that, because the Minister is here to represent a Home Secretary.
Several hon. Members rose—
Siân Berry
This is turning into a very broad debate, but I give way to the hon. Member for Glasgow South West.
Dr Ahmed
It is the hon. Lady’s contention that those of us on the Government Benches were somehow manipulated by others to arrive at this Bill. Will she at least concede that toxic rhetoric and hatred do not occur in a vacuum, as I know personally, but often exploit structural deficiencies in systems, and that sadly there are structural deficiencies in this system? Is fixing them not therefore the responsible thing to do, so that we can turn the tap off that these haters and racists use to fire abusive language at Members of Parliament and members of the public who do not look like them?
The Chair
Order. I have been very lenient, but I gently say that we need to keep interventions sharp and succinct, please.
Siân Berry
Much appreciated, Mr Twigg.
I would say that the best way to stand up to toxic rhetoric is to stand up to it. We are familiar with the concept of the Overton window, and I am distressed that a Labour Government have been moving in this direction through their immigration policies. As I said at the beginning of my speech in the previous debate, the Government ought not to bring forward this Bill or row back on other civil liberties and human rights legislation—that would be the right thing to do. I am a lone voice on this Committee, but that cannot be right when we know that people around the country want migrants to be welcomed and want to see more unity, inclusion and social cohesion. The way to build that is not to hear the argument about how article 8 and the ECHR need to go and then do a little bit of that. The answer is to stand up to the rhetoric and build a better country.
Joe Robertson
I agree with the hon. Lady that there is some toxic rhetoric around this, although not from Members on this Committee. Does she not agree nevertheless that there is a problem with immigration and asylum in this country, and that part of the problem is that the numbers are too high?
Siân Berry
I do not concede that we are taking in too many refugees. As I said at the beginning, we have an international obligation to take our fair share of people seeking asylum, because of all the causes around the world that the hon. Gentleman mentioned earlier—he left out climate change, but I will forgive him that. There are many, many reasons why we ought to take a humane approach to asylum.
Some Government Back Benchers talked earlier about safe routes. There have been good schemes, aimed at particular conflicts in particular countries, and I hope the Government will continue to bring in more such schemes, but it is not good enough to cherry-pick particular conflicts or the kinds of refugees that we find acceptable. The volume of Ukrainian refugees has been absolutely huge, and has not caused social cohesion problems. We can make that work for many other countries as well, but the volumes in other schemes have always been too low. We need a universal framework of law that will work for all kinds of refugees.
David Smith
I was one of the Members who referred earlier in the debate to safe and legal routes, which are a very good idea. May I ask a very simple question: are there any specific restrictions at all that the hon. Lady would like to add to our immigration system?
Siân Berry
Off the top of my head, I cannot think of any. I really think that the current law needs to be administered better, and that we need better decision making, more humanity in all of this, and more support for people to get good decisions made the first time. I would be very happy to receive from the Government any clear evidence of abusive claims under the current law that does not rely on anecdote, but I am absolutely sure that, in clause 18, the Government are seeking to prevent people who would currently succeed from achieving asylum in this country and from being reunited with their families.
Let me move on to more things that the Government have said. The Government tell us that clause 18 is consistent with Strasbourg case law, and they even cite the cases, but, as other hon. Members have mentioned, they cannot have it both ways. If the clause simply restates the law, it is unnecessary. The Government’s impact assessment says that they expect grants to be cut by a third by those reforms. If the clause goes further, it risks putting the country in breach of the convention and inviting years of litigation. Either way, the clause does not deliver the clarity that Ministers promise, and I think that Opposition Members are united on that today.
I believe that a fair immigration system should tackle abuse while protecting genuine family life, and that it should put the best interests of children first and reflect the reality of modern families. Clause 18 does neither. It risks real hardship for genuine families, with little evidence that it will achieve anything else. I urge the Government to think again. We can maintain effective immigration control without using this clause to break up thousands of families. We can protect our borders without sacrificing the fundamental British values of compassion and fairness. For those reasons, I ask the Committee to agree that clause 18 should not stand part of the Bill.
Joe Robertson
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mr Twigg. I will address clause 18. I must confess that I have a slight tendency to stray, but I am comforted by the fact that the hon. Member for Great Grimsby and Cleethorpes will be on it and ensure that I stick to the grouping before us.
I made some comments on clause 18 in the morning sitting, so what I will say now is additional. I will focus on situations in which a right to family life can still be argued under the Bill, even though it seeks to restrict human rights applications based on family life. Those are not situations involving a core cohabiting family, but ones in which a sponsor in the UK who does not necessarily have a UK passport but nevertheless has a right to reside here applies for somebody—not necessarily a family member—who lives elsewhere with no right to come here, has a mental illness, needs the sponsor’s support and cannot find that support at home. That seems to me the widest part of the Bill, allowing a great range of claims to be made and increasing or maintaining the backlog at the Home Office and in the courts.
It seems that this mental illness provision could create a dodgy market of mental health clinics elsewhere in the world, set up specifically to provide paperwork for an application—that is not fanciful. We know the huge pressure from the black market abroad, involving people smugglers and all sorts of behaviour that is not just immoral but illegal and abhorrent, to get people into this country, because of course it is a great place to live and build a life. We know that the pressure is already there; that is why we have such high numbers coming. Setting out in law a mental illness route that seems to have such a low bar for evidence could lead, I think, to an entirely new dodgy avenue opening up.
Let us envisage a very real type of application. Someone in this country says that a family member or close friend living in another part of the world has a mental illness and a certificate to prove it. However, that certificate could very well come from a clinic that does not adhere to the standards of the NHS, the Care Quality Commission or anything that could be recognised in this country. That bit of paperwork—the bottom of which says, by the way, “Sorry, there is no support at home”—could give rise to an application. Without any evidence to the contrary, I do not see how the Home Office—or indeed a court—could deny that application.
Matt Vickers (Stockton West) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Twigg.
Let us be clear about what clause 18 is actually for. The phrase “family life” has been stretched for years, and now covers almost anything: adult siblings, distant relatives and relationships that seem to spring up the week a removal notice lands on the doormat. The Government say that clause 18 will bring that to an end, and that family life will mean what most people think it means: someone’s husband or wife, partner or children. That is what the public think family life means, and it is what Parliament should say it means.
The trouble is the drafting. Clause 18 sets out a clear definition and then, in three separate places, adds a single word that undoes it. As my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight East rightly set out, that word is “normally”. Proposed new section 117AA says that family life
“is normally limited to their core cohabiting family.”
A parent who does not live with their children does not “normally” have family life with them. One adult does not “normally” have family life with other adult relatives, such as brothers and sisters, unless there is real dependency.
Every immigration lawyer in the country will read the word “normally” the same way. If family life is only “normally” limited, their job is to show that their client is not normal. Every case becomes the exception. We have seen that before: a clear rule, a soft word and 10 years of litigation about what the soft word means. It is not as if the clause lacks a safety valve. Proposed new section 117AA(4)(b) provides for adults with a genuine
“additional element of dependency (beyond normal emotional ties)”.
The Court of Appeal set out that test in Kugathas v. Secretary of State for the Home Department more than 20 years ago, and it is where genuinely exceptional cases belong. “Normally” does not add fairness; it adds a second door.
David Smith
I have a fundamental question. The hon. Gentleman is outlining the word “normally”; if, to his estimation, all asylum lawyers or whoever is involved in the process would look at their individual case and say, “That’s not normal,” surely none of it would be exceptional.
Matt Vickers
We are trying to define something, and I think it is on us to define it. Adding “normally”—inviting them to look for the exception—is very unhelpful, particularly when proposed new section 117AA(4)(b) actually sets out the exception and gives that bandwidth for people to find exceptional cases. To write “normally” beside all these properties is to open a door, and would mean that we fail to do what we are aiming to do. That is the objective of the Bill. Amendments 99, 101 and 102 would take that word out. If the Government believe that their definition is right, let us say what it means.
Amendment 98 tackles the same problem from another angle. Under the clause, a court deciding whether article 8 was engaged must “have regard to” proposed new section 117AA, but having regard to something is not the same as following it. The court can have regard to the definition, nod politely and decide a case on a different basis altogether. Amendment 98 says that the court
“must determine that question in accordance with section 117AA.”
If Parliament is going to define family life, the court should apply that definition, not merely consider it.
Amendment 100 asks a simple question: what is a partner? The clause does not say. The immigration rules have required unmarried couples to have lived together in a relationship akin to marriage for at least two years. Amendment 100 would put that test into statute so that a relationship formed a few weeks before a removal date could not be used to frustrate it. It is good enough for the rules; it is good enough for the Bill.
Moving on to amendment 103, in proposed new section 117AA, subsection (5) says that financial dependency, illness short of needing constant care, emotional reliance or worry about relatives in a warzone do not, on their own, create family life between adults. Fair enough, but subsection (6) then says that nothing in subsection (5) stops a court considering every one of those factors at the public interest stage. Can the Minister explain what subsection (5) achieves if subsection (6) allows the very same factors to tip the balance a few paragraphs later?
I welcome Government amendment 45. It asks decision makers to look at whether contact between a parent and child has only recently been established or re-established. That goes to a real problem: relationships that come to life only when removal is on the cards. By tabling it, the Government make our point for us. If it is right to be sceptical of a parental relationship that appears just in time, it is right to be sceptical of a partnership that does the same. That is all amendment 100 asks. Clause 18 is a good idea let down by its drafting. The Government have written a definition and then handed every lawyer in the land the words to argue their way around it. Our amendment would make that definition stick.
If the Minister cannot accept our amendments, I hope that the Government will reflect before Report. I commend the amendments to the Committee.
The Minister for Border Security and Asylum (Anna Turley)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Twigg. I thank hon. Members for their contributions this afternoon. It has been fascinating to have one side saying that we are not going far enough and the other that we are going too far. I hope that means that we are getting the right balance between what the British people wish to see and allowing for the fundamental human rights we all benefit from.
I hope the Chair will indulge me for a moment because I would like to directly address the comments from the hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion. It was unfair and, frankly, quite insulting to suggest that we introduced the Bill to chase rhetoric. I feel very passionately on behalf of my constituents about the importance of the Bill. I know that the hon. Lady and I represent very different constituencies, but she says that there is universal support for refugees. I am sure that she, like me, is watching with horror the masked-up thugs on the streets trying to attack asylum seekers and chasing them out of their accommodation, but when I knock on doors in my constituency, people constantly raise the unfairness of people who seek to exploit our systems, processes and commitment to values like universal human rights, because they can see that those people are not genuine and that they are exploiting our generosity. While we want to fulfil those commitments, it is really important to me that the system has integrity, and that is what the Bill is about.
Anna Turley
I do not mean to be rude, but the hon. Lady has had plenty of time. We can pick this up outside the Committee room, but I wanted to get that on the record.
Clause 18 introduces a definition of article 8 family life into UK primary legislation for the first time, giving courts and decision makers a more consistent framework to apply to immigration cases. Until now, courts have had to determine the existence and scope of family life on a case-by-case basis, which has resulted in significant variability in outcomes. Article 8 is a two-stage test. First, a decision maker or court must decide if family or private life exists. Secondly, where family or private life is established, they must decide whether interference with it pursues a legitimate aim, such as the interests of public safety or the economic wellbeing of the country, and is proportionate when the nature of the breach is balanced against the public interest of removing an individual or refusing them entry.
It is right that article 8 acts as a safeguard to protect genuine family relationships. However, these protections can create opportunities for individuals to rely on weak or peripheral family connections as a basis to remain in or come to the UK. Clause 18 addresses this. It acts in tandem with clause 19 by setting coherent parameters for when family life can be established in line with Strasbourg case law before the strengthened public interest test is applied. It provides a clearer statutory framework for determining whether family life exists for article 8 purposes.
David Smith
Does the Minister agree that unless we introduce a definition of a family, the term becomes entirely subjective?
Anna Turley
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. That is why we have seen the extreme examples of people clearly thwarting the system to try to remain.
The clause makes clear that family life will normally concern the core cohabiting family unit while retaining provision for cases involving genuine parental relationships or additional elements of dependency. This will narrow the circumstances in which a tenuous relationship with a child, or an extended family relationship involving no more than nominal ties, can be used as the basis of a claim. It will support more consistent decision making while retaining the flexibility required. This is key to restoring order and control to the immigration system, ensuring that if someone does not meet the requirements of our rules, they will not have the right to reside here.
Clause 18 makes clear that family life is normally limited to the core cohabiting family unit while preserving flexibility for cases where family life may exist outside of that, aligned with Strasbourg case law. It also clarifies that biological parenthood alone is not enough to constitute family life; there must be evidence of a genuine and subsisting parental relationship. For adult relatives outside the core family unit, financial support, illness, emotional support or concern about conditions overseas will not by themselves establish family life; the relationship must involve true elements of dependency.
Melanie Onn
Would it be the case that someone who had hitherto been an absent father would not meet the criteria in the Bill?
Anna Turley
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. That is exactly what we are seeking to do. We have had evidence of people moving back in with families and dependants purely on the basis of trying to put forward this claim.
Matt Vickers
We are talking about the use of the term “normally”, but would the examples the Minister listed not fall into subsection (4)(b) anyway, meaning that the word “normally” is not required to help them get across the line?
Anna Turley
I am afraid that I disagree. I remind the Committee that, just because family life is established, it does not mean that an individual will automatically be able to remain in or enter the UK. Instead, all cases where family life is found to exist will also be considered at the second stage test, where the courts will have to consider whether it is in the public interest to refuse leave to remain or enter.
Anna Turley
I will just explain a little bit more, and I will hopefully answer the hon. Gentleman’s point. The word “normally” is deliberate and necessary. It allows us to establish a clear and deliberatively restrictive framework in which article 8 family life will ordinarily be confined to the core family while retaining the limited flexibility required for ECHR compliance.
Family relationships, as we have said, do not always fit neatly in formal categories or involve cohabitation. In exceptional cases, a relationship outside the core cohabiting family may, in substance, be akin to one within it. “Normally” enables a court to recognise genuine family life in those limited circumstances, based on the facts of the individual case. Removing it would turn a strong presumption into an inflexible rule, which would risk the exclusion of genuine family relationships and therefore be incompatible with the ECHR, potentially opening us up to even more litigation.
Crucially, this is only a threshold test. Establishing that family life exists does not mean that an article 8 claim succeeds, or that an individual has the right to remain. It simply means that the court moves on to the next stage to consider whether interference with that family life is justified and proportionate, taking account of public interest. Accordingly, the Government do not support the amendments.
Amendment 103, also tabled by the hon. Member for Mid Bedfordshire, seeks to remove subsection (6) of this clause, on the basis that it undermines the effect of subsection (5). I do not, however, accept that that is the case. Those two provisions address different questions: subsection (5) clarifies what cannot independently establish family life between adult extended family members, while subsection (6) preserves the fact-sensitive assessment that is required once family life is engaged.
Subsection (5) makes it clear that financial support, emotional reliance, illness and concern for someone living amid war or instability do not, when taken independently, establish the necessary dependency. Those circumstances do not, however, cease to be relevant for every purpose. If family life is established, the court must then undertake the separate public interest and proportionality assessment.
Subsection (6) therefore provides an important safeguard to ensure that, at that stage, the full factual circumstances can be considered when balancing any interference with family life against the public interest. It also protects the Home Office’s freedom to consider those factors when arguing that the public interest requires a refusal of leave.
Turning to the Government amendments, it is right that children are given additional safeguards in article 8 decision making. Given those well-meaning protections, a tenuous relationship with a child can be used by an adult to remain in the UK. The first step to prevent people from relying on weak parental links to children in article 8 claims is to ensure that the genuine and subsisting parental relationship test under this clause operates as intended.
Government amendment 44 therefore makes it clear that a parent does not normally have family life with a child under the age of 18 for the purposes of article 8 unless there is evidence of a genuine and subsisting parental relationship. It broadens the application of the test so that it applies consistently to all parent-child relationships involving a child under 18, regardless of whether the parent and child live together. That clarifies what is relevant: the substance of the parental relationship, not simply the living arrangements. The amendment aims to reduce the scope for weak or limited parental relationships to be relied on in article 8 claims, including where cohabitation has been resumed opportunistically for immigration purposes; it does not remove protection for genuine parent-child relationships. Where there is evidence of a genuine and subsisting parental relationship, family life will continue to be recognised.
Government amendment 45 builds on amendment 44 to ensure that the genuine and subsisting parental relationship test under the clause will have its intended effect of preventing people from relying on weak parental links to children in article 8 applications. Government amendment 45 provides additional detail on how courts and tribunals should assess whether a parent has a genuine and subsisting parental relationship with a child for the purposes of article 8. It sets out factors that may be relevant to that assessment, including the nature of the relationship, the duration and frequency of contact, and whether contact has recently been established or re-established. The amendment aims to promote greater consistency in the application of the genuine and subsisting parental relationship test, ensuring that courts and tribunals focus on the substance of the relationship; the amendment does not prevent genuine parent-child relationships from attracting article 8 protection. Courts and tribunals will continue to consider all relevant circumstances in each individual case.
Joe Robertson
What would happen if someone were living here, but their child was overseas with the other parent—they were cohabiting there, not with the parent here—but the parent overseas died? What happens to the child? I cannot see a provision by which the child can come here, because there was no core cohabiting family arrangement.
Anna Turley
Exactly such a circumstance is why we have provided flexibility within the Bill. The individual case will be assessed under article 8. In such a situation, there is space for that individual case to be assessed. Together with clause 19, Government amendments 44 and 45 provide a clearer and more consistent framework for determining whether removing an individual with a tenuous relationship to a child in the UK is compliant with article 8.
I will just add something on the key principles behind clause 18. The clause establishes clear boundaries for where family life exists, consistent with Strasbourg case law, providing the foundation on which clause 19’s strengthened public interest test is applied. Together, clauses 18 and 19 will ensure that article 8 is not used routinely to circumvent immigration rules, supporting a more ordered and controlled system where those who do not meet the rules are not routinely able to stay in the UK. Members have suggested that the clauses are too expansive and may widen where family life can be found to exist, but that is not correct. A recent Court of Appeal judgment reaffirmed the existing legal framework for assessing family life under article 8. Clause 18 provides greater clarity. The reforms will make clearer how family life and dependency should be assessed, promoting greater consistency in decision making and curtailing expansive interpretation of where family life can be found to exist. I had intended to talk more about the ECHR, but I shall not test the patience of the Committee.
Other points made during the debate included whether the clause was relevant or whether the courts would just ignore what we are trying to codify. Successive Governments have recognised concerns about how article 8 operates in the immigration system, but this Government are undertaking the hard work to understand the comprehensive reform required to restore order and control to the system. We are working within our international obligations to reset this balance, and to provide a more comprehensive and consistent framework to article 8 decision making. Clause 18 works alongside clause 19 by establishing the clear basis on which the Home Office can argue that family life does not exist before consideration of whether the public interest warrants a refusal of leave. Together, the clauses provide a clearer framework for how article 8 should be assessed to promote greater consistency in decision making and ensure that when considering article 8 immigration decisions, the courts place appropriate weight on what Parliament considers to be in the public interest.
In response to some of the other points made by hon. Members, the framing of proposed new section 117AA preserves the small degree of flexibility necessary for decision makers and the courts not to be constrained to determine claims made under article 8 that are inconsistent with the article. Reference was made to the definition of an eligible partner. That definition will be set out in rules and guidance; it is not appropriate to have that level of detail in primary legislation. We need to have flexibility to be able to change and respond to patterns of behaviour and abuse. One hon. Member spoke about young adults. The word “normally” in clause 18 is a caveat to preserve flexibility for young adults who have family life with parents.
I was asked for more evidential requirements; here some case studies might be helpful. The family immigration rules are intended to create a fair system that balances the important of protecting family and private life. When 71% of first-time grants are made to applicants who have arrived illegally or who have overstayed the time they are permitted to be here, it is clear that article 8 is not operating effectively. I was also asked about retrospective claims and whether the measures would impact people already in the UK. Clause 52(9) allows part 2 of the Bill to be commenced with retrospective effect; we will set out our plans for how the measures will be commenced in due course.
I was asked how the adjudicators would be able to interpret the complexity of clause 18 without legal training—something the Committee spoke about quite a lot in the first sitting of its scrutiny. Adjudicators will be properly trained, with all the safeguards that we talked about in the Committee sitting last Tuesday, to apply the new framework and immigration law. The authority will have legal support, underpinned by clauses 2 and 3 of the Bill. The hon. Member for Brighton Pavilion asked about interference. Clause 18 is not about whether interference is proportionate—that is assessed under clause 19. The grounds for interference, such as for the effectiveness of the immigration system, are consistent with ECHR case law.
Nothing in the Bill prevents individualised decision making; we have deliberately kept that ability, and that is a clear requirement of article 8 compliancy in decision making. Hon. Members also spoke about Home Office decision making. As I have made clear throughout the passage of the Bill, we will of course continue to work to improve decision making. The reforms in the clause clarify how family life should be assessed and strengthen the role of public interest in maintaining effective immigration control, which will help to improve decision making by providing the courts with greater clarity, consistency and predictability.
On mental illness and whether that is a route, it is correct that under proposed new section 117AA(4), family life can be engaged where a person suffers a mental illness or infirmity. However, they would need to be incapacitated to the extent that they need constant care and support, and there would have to be no other viable care options. Examples in established case law include where an adult or child becomes paraplegic after a serious illness, or where an adult or child suffers from Down syndrome and is fully incapacitated. It is worth remembering that the provision is only about establishing family life, and that the decision makers and the courts will go on to consider the public interest question. I hope I have answered all colleagues’ points, and I commend the clause to the Committee.
Question put, That the amendment be made.
Westminster Hall
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Human Rights and the Regulation of Artificial Intelligence
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
Joint committee on Human Rights
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. Alex Sobel will speak on the publication of the fourth report of the Joint Committee on Human Rights, “Human Rights and the Regulation of AI”, HC 160, for up to 10 minutes, during which no interventions may be taken. At the conclusion of his statement, I will call Members to put questions on the subject of the statement, and call Alex Sobel to respond to these in turn. Questions should be brief and Members may ask only one question each. I call Alex Sobel, chair of the Joint Committee on Human Rights.
Alex Sobel (Leeds Central and Headingley) (Lab/Co-op)
Thank you very much, Mrs Barker. As the newly elected Chair, I am proud to be presenting the significant findings of the fourth report of the Joint Committee on Human Rights, on human rights and the regulation of artificial intelligence. I thank Lord Alton for his exemplary leadership and service as the Chair of our Committee.
All the evidence suggests that the world is at the precipice of the outcomes of a reckless race towards superintelligent AI—AI that can fully replace and outmatch humans at any task. Our report found that no cross-economy regulators, agencies or bodies have systemic powers to prevent AI models or systems from being deployed, even if they pose significant risks.
Regulators lack the power to test and evaluate AI systems before they are publicly released or to prevent their release if they are considered to pose unacceptable risks, except in very limited circumstances. Our existing copyright laws will not stop the onset of superintelligent AI in the UK. Model developers engage the AI Security Institute on a voluntary basis. The AI Security Institute has no statutory power.
The Committee found that AI indeed threatens the human rights of people in the UK and elsewhere. We welcome the Prime Minister accepting one of our key recommendations that the Government should use its G20 presidency to address AI harms. That being said, with the speed and turbulence that frontier developers are hurtling towards unleashing superintelligent AI, we must regulate now—not in a year, not in five years, but now. With the G20 in mind, we should seek a global agreement on standards and regulations next year.
The Committee has concentrated on the key principles identified in the Council of Europe’s framework convention as being fundamental to the protection of human rights— equality and non-discrimination, and privacy and personal data protection. The Committee defined that AI systems are machine systems that perceive, learn and act.
AI is now widely used across a diverse range of purposes, from email spam filters through to powerful tools for scientific discovery. AI systems are being incorporated into more complex AI agents. These are small, specialised pieces of software that can make decisions and operate co-operatively or independently to achieve pre-specified objectives. A fundamental aspect of current AI systems is their capacity to operate with varying degrees of autonomy and adaptiveness. Some AI models operate in ways that are so mathematically complex that their outputs are opaque, even to an informed expert.
The general-purpose AI systems used today are not coded line by line, but use vast amounts of data and are grown, not built. This results in systems that nobody fully understands or can reliably predict.
Let me be clear: AI is the crucial technology of the 21st century. It is vital to effective defence and promotes vast benefits for science, medicine and the UK’s prosperity. However, there are many ways in which AI may adversely affect human rights. In particular, witnesses during our inquiry told us of the potential impact on the treatment and condition of workers, workers’ rights generally and on the environment.
Furthermore, companies are spending billions to make superintelligent AI reality. The chief executives of top AI companies themselves put the chance that it ends all human life at between 10% and 25%. In any other industry, with that level of risk, this development would be ruled out. How have we allowed frontier developers to create the rules in which they govern themselves?
On the first principle of the framework convention—equality and non-discrimination—we heard that intentional abuses committed using AI systems such as deepfakes can have a disproportionate effect on people from minoritised groups, compounding existing structural and systemic racism and sexism that impacts victims’ personal and professional lives. The Safety Not Surveillance coalition told us:
“AI is having a chilling effect on communities of colour in the UK.”
Discrimination can arise when AI systems are deployed, because of these baked-in biases and choices made by those deploying AI systems. We heard explicit examples of AI facial recognition software having racial basis and of AI recruitment tools discriminating against women applicants. AI systems are prone to producing unfairly discriminatory outcomes because of biased training data. That threatens the human rights of people in the UK and elsewhere.
Next, we looked at the second principle of the framework convention, which is that AI systems pose particular risks to privacy and personal data. The Committee found that because of the prevalence of web scraping to collect personal data to train large language models, there is potential for AI systems to be used in highly intrusive ways. That threatens the article 8 right to privacy of people in the UK and is given particular expression in data protection law in relation to personal data. Between January and October 2025, about 3 million people would have had their faces scanned by police facial recognition technology in the UK without their consent.
Human rights principles must inform all aspects of the Government’s policies and practices relating to AI systems, including their approach to the regulation of AI. The Committee recommends that the Government encourage the development of AI use cases that can demonstrably improve human rights.
Although the AI action plan commissioned by the previous Administration brings a welcome focus on innovation and economic opportunity, it fails to pay sufficient attention to the need to secure the protection of human rights from AI-generated interference throughout the supply chain.
The UK’s leading position as the third largest AI market in the world affords opportunities not only for economic growth, but for setting strong standards on the responsible adoption and development of new technologies. The Committee is encouraged by the prominence given to AI by the new Administration and urges the Government to seize the opportunity to regulate AI in a way that puts human rights first. To address the global nature of AI harms and protect human rights, Governments need to collaborate to identify risks and promote consistent standards. The UK can be justifiably proud of its record of leadership on AI. That has been maintained across Administrations from different sides of the debate. An appropriate regulatory regime would not only enhance human rights protections but help to reinforce the UK’s leadership position in AI safety.
The Committee recommends that the Government introduce a new AI Bill, as promised in the 2024 King’s Speech, to place AI regulation on a sound basis and give full effect to the framework convention. A risk-based approach is needed to address AI harms. The Hugging Face incident and others illustrate the significant risks that can arise from the newest and most advanced AI models, and legislation should address those risks on a precautionary basis with a view to avoiding harm, as with the regulation of pharmaceuticals. Low-risk AI systems should be subject to fewer and less demanding legal requirements. To ensure that regulation can keep pace with technological developments, it is preferable for legislation to take the form of broadly framed principles. The AI Bill that we recommend should provide for a regulatory regime that would classify different risk levels and mandate proportionately more demanding obligations for higher-risk AI systems and models.
Some uses of AI should be prohibited because they are incompatible with human rights. I believe that to be the case when it comes to superintelligent AI. Once developers reach superintelligent AI, it will be too late to slow anything down in time for us to regulate. The development of the most advanced AI systems happens on a spectrum, so where we draw the line matters. That line must be able to recognise the capabilities of superintelligent AI. The clearest example of such a capability is recursive self-improvement—the full automation of AI development, with no humans in the loop. That is the point at which we lose control, as development towards superintelligent AI would proceed too fast for humans to intervene and remain in control.
Frontier developers are heeding standards, rather than statute, for their own AI models. These are the same developers who are deliberately training their models to hack and deceive, as we heard this week during the Business, Innovation, Science and Trade Committee inquiry session, which I guested at as JCHR Chair. We heard from ex-employees of frontier developers OpenAI, Google DeepMind and Anthropic. We heard about non-existent safety cultures in these organisations. Some whistleblowers put the chance of AI destroying humanity at 50%—a coin flip as to whether we survive. This is not a human rights model that we should ever be working with. These frontier developers believe that they will not get stopped by Government in their race to superintelligence. Let us put a stop to that and regulate now.
In the words of David Krueger, previously at the UK AI Security Institute,
“My dream is that in 10 years people will look back and say: ‘Remember when there were all these people building AI that could’ve killed everybody? That was CRAZY! What were we thinking!?’”
Euan Stainbank (Falkirk) (Lab)
This is a fast-moving topic that has continued to be of deep concern to my constituents since the publication of the report. Subsequent to its publication, has my hon. Friend seen any further evidence of the need for mandatory testing of AI frontier models?
Alex Sobel
I thank my fellow Committee member for that question. In the report, we said:
“Many AI systems developed for a specific purpose can be deployed or adapted for use for different purposes and contexts from those intended by the AI developer. Those deploying the system may lack understanding of the risks arising from the way in which the AI system has been designed and developed”.
We also recommend that the AI Bill should
“impose proportionate obligations on actors at all stages of the AI lifecycle and supply chain to ensure that risks are identified, evaluated and effectively addressed at the appropriate stage.”
On Tuesday, at the BIST Committee, we heard from Daniel Kokotajlo, a whistleblower, who said that pre-deployment training was insufficient and AISI or other safety institutes should be undertaking internal testing during all stages of development.
Dame Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central and West) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend the Chair of the Joint Committee for this report. I should declare an interest as the Chair of the Science and Technology Committee. I guested on the inquiry, and I share the concerns regarding the potential harms to human rights and support the report’s call for effective principle-based regulation now.
Does my hon. Friend agree with me, and with His Holiness the Pope in his “Magnificent Humanity” encyclical, that human rights are for humans, that the anthropomorphising of AI—going as far as ascribing human consciousness and human rights to AI—is an attempt by tech companies to limit their own liability as well as boosting the potential value of their shares?
Alex Sobel
I thank my hon. Friend the Chair of the Science and Technology Committee. It has been my great privilege to twice hear Pope Leo address an audience in the Vatican. The second time, at the Jubilee of Governments, last year in June, he addressed this exact issue. This is not a recent development for the Pope. I read his encyclical and think that every Government should study it. It is interesting that—although he is technically a head of state, because the Vatican is a state—a faith leader such as the Pope has such an incisive view on an issue such as this and brings it back to the central principle that human rights are for humans. We have already seen the anthropocentric effects on the climate. We cannot have the same pervade every area of life through AI. These AI companies are now at a stage where they are trying to replace Governments and not be regulated by Governments. That is, exactly as my hon Friend says, because they can then limit their liabilities, maximise their profits and act without any scope from the state. That should concern us all.
Peter Swallow (Bracknell) (Lab)
My hon. Friend will not have failed to clock the comments from the president of Microsoft this week that the UK is best placed to lead on AI governance. That is something that we found in our report, not least because of the AI Security Institute, which our report recommends strengthening further. Does he agree that it is not about limiting the very real benefits that AI may bring to the UK’s economy, our healthcare system or even, as we found in our report, to human rights, but about leading the world in realising those benefits safely while recognising and mitigating the very real risks that exist?
Alex Sobel
I absolutely agree. We continually heard evidence right across the industry, both here in the House and externally, about the excellent work that the AISI does. I am pleased that the AI Minister, who is here in the Chamber, has played another leading role in developing AISI as the world’s leading AI safety institute.
However, my hon. Friend is absolutely right. There are two things. The first, as the report found, is about human utilisation of AI tools through, for instance, deepfakes, which affect people’s human rights, or through employment practices, which we can probably very easily regulate, control and legislate for, but that need Government action.
Then, secondly, there are the frontier models. We need a very different level of regulation and legislation for those than we have for individual assistive tools. I am not really worried about ChatGPT 2.0. It is not going to create an existential crisis but, without regulation, future models that are being developed can and will.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I thank the Committee Chair and the rest of the Committee for their report and all of the work that they have done. I cannot pretend to understand all about AI. I am probably the oldest of the old school when it comes to those things. I agree with what the Committee has said about how human rights should be first and AI second. I thank the Committee for its clear focus on that.
I also welcome the recommendation that there should be a new AI Bill. That is the right way to do it, because as we look forward, and move forward, we want to ensure that those things happen. Will the regional Assemblies across the United Kingdom, particularly the Northern Ireland Assembly, but also those in Scotland and Wales, be notified and advised of the technology and what the Committee has said? It is really important that individual human rights are protected. Indeed, I believe that they are sacrosanct. Human rights should be first. They should take precedent every time over the technology that is coming through AI.
Alex Sobel
First, AI may have the potential to replace many things, but it will probably never be able to replace the hon. Gentleman’s intervention at the Adjournment debate. We can probably rest assured of one thing in terms of AI development.
I am glad that we now seem to have cross-party support from the hon. Gentleman and his party for a new AI Bill with human rights at the centre. What he says about human rights is absolutely correct. I always say that human rights are universal, inalienable, indivisible and apply everywhere in the world. Our Committee’s remit is for the UK, but this is an international issue. I am sure that the Minister has heard all that we have said.
Unpaid Carers
(1 day, 9 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
Alison Bennett (Mid Sussex) (LD)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the matter of support for unpaid carers.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Barker. This is an important debate, and I am grateful to hon. Members from across the House for taking time to attend it. I thank Carers UK, Carers Trust and the many other fantastic organisations working in this space. I also thank all the contributors to the Petitions Committee survey that went out nationally in anticipation of the debate: the words, wisdom and experience of those contributors, from every part of the country, including my own constituency of Mid Sussex, are gold dust if we in this place are going to make the right changes. Even in the short window the survey was open, hundreds of people shared stories and ideas for change. I am sorry I cannot read them all out, but plenty of those stories paint a picture of a country that is failing its carers and those they care for.
That is having horrendous consequences. Last night a harrowing case from my area was brought to my attention, and I will share it as it brings to light what happens when we get this wrong. Two young boys were living with their mum, who had multiple health issues and regular emergency hospital admissions. The mum told the hospital and medical staff multiple times that her sons would look after her at home. Despite this, neither boy was ever identified as a young carer. Eventually, in February 2025, one of the boys found his mum dead following a medical incident at home and had to call emergency services. I would like the Minister to share what steps the Department is taking to improve identification of young carers by health services.
Lots of the contributors to the Petitions Committee survey talked about carer’s allowance, with varying opinions as to its efficacy. Some said they had never heard of it. I would like to share a short extract from the contribution of a former human rights lawyer who gave that up for her caring responsibilities. She wrote in to the Petitions Committee survey with a poem that ends:
“You have the privilege of debating important things every year,
But when my day of caring is particularly gruelling or heart breaking, I sometimes debate whether to go on in this life.
That’s when the strongest and kindest pair of hands curl around my neck,
And say ‘Mum, why are you sad, I love you, it’s going to be all right.’
Carer’s Leave Act 2023 now puts some new responsibility on employers,
So, we ask our employers—and it’s maybe fair to say this is the state
In the most democratic, fair and established country in the world in terms of governance, rights and liberties,
Why do up to 16.2% of the population get just 19% of the national minimum wage—and how is this still even up for debate?”
Unpaid carers are the people who look after family members, friends and loved ones who cannot manage alone. They are partners, parents, children, siblings, friends and neighbours. They provide care in all our communities, often without support and at considerable personal cost. According to the 2021 census, 5.8 million people provide unpaid care across the UK. Some 1.7 million provide at least 50 hours of care every week. Their contribution is extraordinary. The value of unpaid care across the UK has been estimated at £184 billion a year.
Those people sacrifice sleep, put their own health needs aside, limit their career prospects, use up their savings and worry about what will happen if they can no longer cope. Carers UK research estimates that 1.2 million unpaid carers live in poverty, including 400,000 who are in deep poverty. Its 2025 State of Caring survey found that 74% of respondents had felt stressed or anxious, while almost half had cut back on essentials.
No one should be pushed into poverty because they care for someone they love, and no one should have to sacrifice their own health, financial security or future simply because the support they need is not available. This is an issue of financial security, employment, health and wellbeing, and equality of opportunity. It affects people of every age and background in every constituency represented in this House.
We are right to keep saying these things: that unpaid carers do extraordinary work, that without them our entire health system would collapse and that, too often, they go unsupported. However, we also have to make tangible changes that move us on from a status quo that is not good enough—words and actions, not words and inaction.
There have been some welcome developments in recent months. The Government’s carers action plan, the announcement of a dedicated Government champion for unpaid carers, the review of carers’ employment rights and the work to reform carer’s allowance all offer opportunities for meaningful progress. I welcome those steps, but what matters is whether they lead to practical improvements in the lives of carers and those they care for.
We must ensure that unpaid carers are at the heart of the new plans for adult social care, including the work of the Casey commission and the development of a national care service. A new system must recognise that unpaid care cannot be taken for granted. Carers must have a genuine say about what they are willing and able to do, and there must be dependable alternatives when they cannot provide care. Their voices must help to shape the design of services and the decisions made about them and the people they support.
When we get this wrong, we see terrible injustices, such as the carer’s allowance overpayments scandal. The reassessment exercise is welcome, but so far the Department for Work and Pensions has reviewed just 1% of identified cases in six months, which is a woefully slow pace. I would like to hear from the Minister about the Department’s plans to resolve what is clearly an inadequate pace of redress.
As we approach Carers Rights Day next month, this debate is an opportunity for colleagues of all political persuasions to ask the Government to give us a clear and credible plan for unpaid carers. I hope it will be constructive and cross-party. There is much on which we can agree: carers deserve recognition, financial security, access to breaks, support for their health and a fair opportunity to remain in paid employment if they wish to do so.
I would particularly welcome the Minister setting out what concrete improvements carers can expect over the next 12 months, how progress will be measured and how Parliament can hold the Government to account for delivery. Unpaid carers make an enormous contribution to our national community. They should not have to struggle alone, and they should not have to wait indefinitely for the support they need. Properly supporting carers means properly supporting our NHS, our fellow Britons and the nation as a whole. I look forward to hearing colleagues’ contributions and the Minister’s response.
Paula Barker (in the Chair)
There will be a time limit of five minutes for Back-Bench speeches.
Josh Newbury (Cannock Chase) (Lab)
In December last year, I met one of my constituents, Julian, whose wife has cared for their daughter since birth. Their daughter was born with spina bifida and walked until the age of seven, but has been confined to a wheelchair since then. She was later diagnosed with hydrocephalus, which requires a shunt to drain excess fluid from the brain. Julian’s wife has devoted her life to making sure that their daughter is looked after, putting her needs first and sacrificing the opportunity to build a career and her own pension provision, so she will very much recognise the picture set out by the hon. Member for Mid Sussex (Alison Bennett) in her brilliant opening speech.
The caring responsibilities of Julian’s wife have not come to an end because she has reached state pension age, but the financial support available to her has very much changed. Julian put something to me that I thought was worth sharing today. He compared his wife’s situation with an employer paying someone for 35 hours of work a week but expecting them to carry on working, without pay, once they reach retirement age, arguing that that is fine because they are being paid their pension.
Now, caring for a family member is not the same as employment, and all sorts of things need to be considered. I appreciate the rules about overlapping benefits and the system not paying both in full for the same period, and I know that the state pension can be topped up by pension credit if it is lower than the carer’s allowance. I am not here to say that the answer is simply to pay both the state pension and carer’s allowance to everybody caring for a loved one, but speaking to Julian left me feeling that we should take a closer look at the circumstances of older carers and whether the support available to them properly reflects the realities of their lives.
While preparing for today’s debate I spoke with Carers UK. Its research shows that around one in five carers of state pension age are living in poverty, compared with 13% of non-carers in the same group. It also reports that more than 600,000 older carers provide at least 50 hours of care every week. Those figures stood out as a reminder that caring in older age is a lot more than a few hours here and there; it is an enormous and lifelong commitment. There might be some practical steps worth considering too. Carers UK has highlighted that some carers entitled to pension credit are not receiving it and has called for simpler processes and checks when carers reach state pension age.
I am encouraged by the Government’s ambition on social care and by Baroness Casey’s review, as that will help us finally realise a system that better supports people who draw on care, their families and the people who care for them. I hope that the experiences of older, unpaid carers and the particular challenges they face when they reach state pension age are being considered as part of that work. As Julian said to me,
“Carers are the nation’s unsung heroes.”
Many of us will recognise that sentiment, and I hope we can agree that respecting carers means much more than just acknowledging how much they do. It also means asking ourselves whether the support around them is enough, particularly when the alternative is social care, which costs the state much more.
I would be grateful if the Minister could take this issue up and consider if there is scope to review the support available for older carers, whether through simpler access to existing entitlements, a closer look at the additional financial pressures they are facing or further work on how their contribution can be recognised. I am not asking for a simple answer to a very complicated policy question today; I am just asking whether we can keep looking at this matter, listen to people like Julian and his wife, and make sure that carers who continue to give so much as they grow older are not overlooked. The need for care does not stop at retirement age, and the people providing that care should not feel that their contribution has stopped counting either.
John McDonnell (Hayes and Harlington) (Lab)
We have this debate on a regular basis; on average we come back to it every six months. We have had a breakthrough with the action plan—I welcome that. For the first time we have a number of Departments working together coherently, and I think it will improve lives overall.
There is a sense of urgency now. I have chaired an unpaid carers group for about three years—I am losing track of time. They are a representative group of young and old. They are mainly parents looking after their children, but some are siblings looking after one another and some of them are young as well. Exactly as the survey said, every one of them reflects the condition they are living in; it is poverty and hardship, sometimes in the extreme. Most of them find it difficult to work. They want to work; often they have given up their jobs as a result of their caring responsibilities and some of them have given up professional careers.
Those carers also lack respite, and the common theme that comes through is the lack of a break. Another issue is that, where respite is offered, there are not the staff with the skills to cope with the individual they are caring for. Non-verbal individuals are very difficult to care for and staff need specialist training, but that is almost non-existent in many areas. I point to the report produced for the House by Siobhan O’Dwyer from the University of Birmingham, which we used in the debate about a year ago. That shocking survey—I do not like to raise this, but I have to—found that 40% of carers had thought about suicide as a result of the stress they are under.
I welcome the action plan, but there is a sense of urgency. We cannot get away from the fact that the carer’s allowance is so low. Many of the carers I work with say, “We want a wage. We’re doing a job.” No one is doing 35 hours; they are all doing 40 or 50 hours, if not longer in some instances. They want a wage to lift them out of poverty, but also to reflect our respect for the work that they are undertaking. As my hon. Friend the Member for Cannock Chase (Josh Newbury) said, we do not expect miracles overnight, but we want to see some progression to a form of living wage for carers. We also need a system through which the issue can be properly evaluated over a longer period.
I am really pleased by the Prime Minister’s commitment to social care. We have known about it for over a decade, from when he was in Parliament previously. It is a pity that there was not cross-party support to implement it at that time.
I am also involved in a campaign in honour of one of our colleagues, Iain Coleman, who was the Member of Parliament for Hammersmith and Fulham. When he was leader of Hammersmith and Fulham council, he introduced free personal care—free home care—at the local level, and it has proved incredibly successful. Some councils have tried to emulate it, but with the cuts to local government over the past 14 years, it has proved very difficult.
The first step towards a national care service could be the introduction of personal care. We should not wait until after the next general election in 2029; we should work towards it over the next year. Local authorities can undertake that work; it just needs to be resourced. I hope the social care action plan group brings forward a proposal that takes into account what Casey says next year—I am glad that has been brought forward—and sets out a step-by-step approach to introducing home care.
When my group met last week, most of the people on it had not heard of the care plan. They have now, and we are going to take people through it. What came back from them was very practical. The objectives of the care plan were set out clearly in July; we now want to see steps towards implementing the objectives, which must be costed and timetabled. Within that, we want a debate about carer’s allowance and home care.
Linsey Farnsworth (Amber Valley) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Barker. I congratulate the hon. Member for Mid Sussex (Alison Bennett) on securing this very important debate.
Today, we are recognising the nearly 6 million parents, partners, siblings, friends and neighbours in the UK who, day in, day out, provide support, love, care and safety to some of the most vulnerable members of our society. The quiet and diligent contributions of unpaid carers is immeasurable and too often goes overlooked. The reality is that such care comes at a significant personal cost. The point of diagnosis is often as life-changing for the carer as it is for the patient, albeit in significantly different ways. I worry that our health and social care systems have become dependent on large sections of society providing care that the state would otherwise be expected to deliver, alongside full-time jobs and other commitments.
I want to focus on the role of unpaid cares in dementia care—an area of the system of which I have personal experience. Figures suggest that unpaid carers provide about half the total economic contribution to dementia care in the UK, amounting to an estimated £21.1 billion every year, yet there is too little support for those who provide those services.
My mum, brother and mother-in-law are all part of that statistic. Ten years ago, my father and father-in-law were diagnosed with dementia within a few months of each other. I know all too well the harsh reality that can follow such a diagnosis. Too often, families are handed a leaflet and are left to navigate the system. They are expected to become experts in dementia overnight. My family have become experts in spotting the signs of urinary tract infections and in understanding the risk of delirium. Every time delirium hits, my father’s dementia may accelerate, his condition may worsen and a new baseline becomes our new normal. We have learned the absolute imperative of keeping him out of hospital. As the Geller Commission has shown, dementia patients stay seven times longer in hospital than those with the same illness who do not have dementia.
Every person’s dementia journey is different. My father-in-law is awake much of the night, whereas my dad is fast asleep throughout the night, and some of the day as well. Every person’s care journey needs to be individually tailored, and I know that important steps are being taken to support local carers on a regional level. In Amber Valley, a small but dedicated team of nurses and healthcare professionals is working with the ICB to deliver the Derbyshire dementia strategy, which focuses on training, awareness and support for unpaid carers. Dementia UK installs Admiral nurses across the country, who are there to support the whole family, but there are too few of them.
Local commitments and initiatives such as the Admiral nurse scheme must be matched by national resources. As my own experience attests, accessing support remains one of the greatest challenges facing unpaid carers. One in seven are unaware of any sources of support, while 46% do not know who to contact to access social care. Given that bleak picture, is it any wonder that research suggests that 49% of carers report exhaustion or breakdown as the needs of the person they care for increase? It is often at that point that the consequences are felt across the NHS, with dementia patients needing to be admitted to hospital or A&E, or to have emergency GP appointments.
This debate is timely, as the forthcoming modern service framework for frailty and dementia presents a unique opportunity to embed measures that can right the wrongs and establish a care pathway for both those with dementia and their carers. I urge the Minister to listen to calls within the sector for the framework to include national standards for identifying and supporting unpaid dementia carers, and to ensure that it is implemented consistently across every postcode. Part of that work will involve intervening to facilitate better awareness of the support that is already available, including carers’ assessments, and ensuring that the results are followed up on.
Finally, will the Minister set out how his Department will ensure that the modern service framework enables health and social care to be joined up and share responsibility for proactive support for both patients and carers after a diagnosis of dementia?
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
It is always a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Barker. You always have a wonderful smile and you give us encouragement when we come along. That helps us to talk about subjects that are sometimes quite difficult to talk about—this is one of them. It is also a pleasure to see the Minister in his place. I look forward, as we all do, to his response to the debate.
Over my years as an elected representative—it has been a long time—I have met some young carers and unpaid carers. I have to start my contribution by paying tribute to them—those who quietly, tirelessly and selflessly dedicate their lives to looking after loved ones. What have I seen? I have seen the profound exhaustion. I have seen the absolute devotion. I have seen the immense financial and emotional toll. It is a fundamental truth that unpaid carers are filling a massive breach that the state simply cannot afford to fill. Without them, our health and social care system would collapse overnight.
I always give a Northern Ireland perspective. I wish I could say that it would not be replicated in what others will say today, but on this it is the very same. We have some 220,000 carers providing vital support to sick, elderly or disabled family members and friends. That is roughly one in eight adults. It breaks my heart to note that we also have roughly 17,500 children and young adult carers in Northern Ireland carrying a physical and emotional burden that no young shoulder should ever have to bear, but they are bearing it.
The latest research from Carers NI reveals that unpaid carers save the Northern Ireland Executive an astronomical £5.8 billion every single year. That is because if staff were doing that work, it would cost £16 million every single day, or more than £660,000 every single hour. That is equivalent to 80% of the entire day-to-day Department of Health budget.
In my Strangford constituency, in the Ards and North Down area, the local reality hits even closer to home. We have some 18,000 unpaid carers in our local communities, from the streets of Newtownards and Comber right down to the most isolated parts of the Ards peninsula. They are ordinary people doing extraordinary things. They are the partners, the parents and the children who have stepped into the breach because their love for their family overrides everything else.
How do we reward—I say “we”, but it is not us personally; it is government—that immense contribution? We reward them with poverty. We reward them with isolation and institutional neglect. The poverty rate among young carers in Northern Ireland stands at a shocking 28%. For those trying to survive on carer’s allowance, the situation is dire. The cost of living crisis has pushed them to the absolute brink, with more than half struggling to pay basic utility bills and over a third being forced to skip meals just so that they can look after their loved ones.
More than 52% of carers in Northern Ireland report that their physical health has suffered due to their responsibilities. Their days have a sense of fear and dread. Our carers in Northern Ireland do not even have the statutory baseline of protection. They are forced to reduce their hours or leave the workforce entirely, with nearly 30% of local carers having to give up their jobs to care. The impact on the carers is massive; poverty, for 28% of carers in Northern Ireland, is extreme.
This is the responsibility of the DWP, not the Minister, but every week in my office, sometimes more than once, my staff and I have to take on the case of someone who has had an overpayment. Sometimes they are a carer, and we have to intervene and help to get a repayment system that they can cope with, and it is all because of a mistake that was made. I am not talking about those who blatantly take advantage of the DWP system; I am talking about the ones who come to me—and probably to you, too, Mrs Barker—on a regular basis, who have to repay a statutory payment. It is a disgrace that we penalise those who want to work a few extra hours while managing their care duties. Does the Minister agree that it is high time that we stop treating unpaid carers as a free resource to prop up a failing social care system?
I welcome the fact that the Prime Minister says he will address this, but my goodness me, do it not just in England but in Northern Ireland. Will the Government commit to a comprehensive cross-departmental review of carer’s allowance thresholds and work closely with the Stormont Executive to deliver a ringfenced financial package and proper respite care, to ensure that those who care for our society are finally cared for themselves? That is what I want; I think it is what everybody wants.
Burnout is a real thing. Without support, we risk carers not only being unable to care for their loved ones but needing care themselves. That is what the ones I meet tell me. All we need to do is look at them. I am not better than anybody else, but when I engage with them, I can quickly understand how things are. This precarious house of cards around carers must be sheltered from the wind, and the Government must do that or pay an ultimate, unfathomable cost.
Mrs Elsie Blundell (Heywood and Middleton North) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Barker, and to see the Minister, my constituency neighbour, in his place. I thank the hon. Member for Mid Sussex (Alison Bennett) for securing this crucial debate.
The debt we owe to our country’s unpaid carers is immense. I thank those across Heywood and Middleton North who often balance their caring commitments with a career, family and other responsibilities and somehow manage to ensure that those they care for can live in comfort and dignity. The difference these people make to those they support can never be fully conveyed, but the onus is on us as parliamentarians to stand beside them as, day in, day out, they make someone else their priority.
There are millions of people across the country who are doing so right now, and the number is growing as our population ages. Undoubtedly, every Member present will know a constituent, friend or family member with caring responsibilities. Being an unpaid carer, though commendable, can be deeply isolating and lonely. It is therefore crucial that when it gets too much, there is a community and a safety net that can provide comfort and support to our constituents.
Earlier in the year, during Carers Week, I met with local carers, staff and volunteers from the Carers’ Hub Rochdale at Queen’s Park in Heywood. They were coming together to meet and support each other—they really are a lovely group of people. I thank Deana, Victoria, Grace, Karen, Sarah and others for their unwavering commitment to the hub and those who rely on it.
At one of the group’s regular coffee and chat sessions, they traded stories that could make you laugh and cry, speaking candidly about their struggles, hopes and fears, the truth behind their lives and the loved ones they care for. There were so many similarities in their experiences that bound them together—a community of local heroes who just need a place to come together and take a breath.
The hub’s support for carers goes even further, offering personalised one-to-one support, wellbeing assessments, support plans, community connections with local services and friendly community groups for the carer and those being cared for. That is alongside respite services, which provide the opportunity for a short break for a night or two, and social events with opportunities to make new skills, as well as online services, a helpline and a pen pal community.
The carers I met back in the summer had some clear priorities for me to raise today, and I hope the Minister will touch on them when he responds to the debate. They felt that the earnings threshold is too rigid, creating cliff edges for working carers, and in many ways does not reflect more nuanced arrangements in relation to their caring responsibilities and their day jobs.
Mark Sewards (Leeds South West and Morley) (Lab)
My hon. Friend is making a powerful speech, as has every Member who has spoken today. I represent about 8,000 unpaid carers in Leeds South West and Morley—that is about 9% of my constituents—and it is clear that I need to speak for them. Something that has been missing from the debate is those who criticise the offer of extra help to unpaid carers as a cost to the Treasury and to businesses. Does my hon. Friend agree that the greater cost is the fact that 1.1 million unpaid carers have left work in the last two years because many of them had no choice but to do so?
Mrs Blundell
I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend; that is a crucial point to make. Many carers are turning down opportunities for advancement and promotion, and that is having a bad effect on the economy as well as themselves. I believe, as do the carers I met recently, that being a carer should not restrict one’s advancement elsewhere. How is the Minister working to ensure that our fantastic carers are encouraged to seize opportunities rather than being dissuaded from doing so?
Another area of focus of my conversation with the group was how we can, and must, work towards a more proactive system to identify and recognise carers. This means NHS trusts having robust and systematic processes for identifying carers, with GP records being properly maintained so that individuals can be identified early, connected to support, and have their own wellbeing needs properly addressed.
I am pleased that young carers are going to be identified quicker and better supported so that they can stay in education without falling behind at school. I am also pleased that schools are to be held accountable in respect of data on young carers’ attendance, alongside secure information sharing across different services. That is critical to ensure that these youngsters do not fall through the cracks or buckle under the weight of their responsibilities at such a pivotal moment. I am pleased that the Government are so receptive to that idea.
Finally, I would like to touch on how we secure high-quality supportive and respite services in every postcode. When carers reach a point where they feel like the walls are closing in—and, in truth, long before they reach that point—flexible respite and replacement care should be available, and should be both reliable and of high quality. Some organisations currently feel they are expected to do more with less with each year that passes. I hope the Minister can speak to that, too.
In closing, I express my sincere thanks to the unpaid carers of Heywood and Middleton North and beyond, without whom the lives of so many people across our communities would be much more difficult. The contribution that these individuals make cannot easily be qualified or quantified, but it can and must be recognised. It is our responsibility to ensure that their voices are heard and that we in turn give them a fraction of the support that they provide to those most in need.
Anna Dixon (Shipley) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Barker. I draw Members’ attention to my entry in the register of all-party parliamentary groups as chair of the APPG on carers. I add my thanks to the hon. Member for Mid Sussex (Alison Bennett). I commend her for securing this debate and for her work on this issue on behalf of her party.
For nearly 6 million unpaid family carers across the UK, and over 8,000 across my constituency, caring is an act of love. Whether they are caring for a severely disabled child, a partner who has dementia or a parent who is at the end of their life, their everyday help demonstrates a deep love, whether by helping them to wash, dress, eat, get off to school or work, or providing emotional support through periods of pain, loneliness, fear and frustration. That is when we see human relationships at their best, yet for too many, that act of love can quickly turn into an act of sacrifice that involves giving up work, putting their own life on hold, ignoring their own health and well-being, or experiencing stress and financial hardship. Those are just some of the ways in which carers are impacted.
Unpaid carers give so much, but often get too little. I have seen at first hand the difference that unpaid carers make to the lives of the people they care for. I grew up with my disabled grandma Frieda, who suffered life-changing injuries in a road collision. The decades of support that my mum gave her enabled her to live semi-independently—to go out to church, connect with her friends and live a full life—but I saw the impact on my mum. She gave up her own career as a doctor and carried additional worry and responsibilities, including having to make sure that care was in place for my grandma every time we went on a family holiday.
I have dedicated my career to securing better care and support for older and disabled people and their carers, and I am pleased to have carried that on in Parliament through the APPG. I am grateful to Carers UK for all the support the organisation gives and for enabling us in Parliament to hear carers’ powerful stories. I also commend colleagues, including my hon. Friend the Member for Amber Valley (Linsey Farnsworth), for sharing their personal stories of juggling care and this job, which is not easy. Around two thirds of people will provide unpaid care during their adult life. It is a huge issue, and I am delighted to see that it is finally getting the attention it deserves from this Labour Government.
What support do carers need, what are they getting, and what more do they need? As others have said, they need support financially to stay in work and to find work, and when they take on a substantial amount of care, they need direct financial support. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) said, unfortunately, carers’ allowance is just not high enough. According to Carers UK, 1,500 people leave employment every day to take up caring responsibilities.
I was pleased to meet the Minister for the Future of Work, my neighbouring MP, earlier this week to discuss the recently closed consultation. In that meeting, I underlined the importance of introducing statutory paid carers leave, extending unpaid carers leave to enable people to take longer breaks and return to their job, strengthening flexible working and improving employer practices. I hope that the Minister present will urge his colleagues in the Department for Business, Innovation, Science and Trade to go far on the response to that consultation.
Much has been done to reform carers’ allowance. I am hopeful that the Government will bring in a taper system to replace the current cliff edge. I add my request to the one made by the hon. Member for Mid Sussex that Ministers call in DWP officials to ask exactly what progress they are making on assessing cases. At the rate they are going, it will take 40 years to complete the process. That is simply not good enough when carers are being worried by debts and civil penalties.
Secondly, we need to support carers’ own health and wellbeing. About a quarter of unpaid carers in my constituency describe their health as not good. They have no time for themselves, no time to attend routine check-ups and no time to take a break. Short breaks, respite care and sitting services are vital, such as those provided by the excellent charity Carers’ Resource in Bradford and the innovative Shared Lives respite model provided by Bradford council. I also welcome the Government carers action plan, and I hope the Minister will outline what the NHS is doing.
Finally, I commend the Government for bringing in a national care service. I will do everything I can to make sure that carers’ voices are heard in shaping it for the future.
Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Barker.
I thank the hon. Member for Mid Sussex (Alison Bennett) for securing this debate and for succeeding me as the chair of the APPG for young carers and young adult carers. She knows that when we talk about unpaid carers, we must include young carers and young adult carers. We know that the number of young people under the age of 18 who care for a loved one or family member has increased; in fact, the amount of time for which those young carers care for a loved one has also increased significantly. The Carers Trust estimates that more than 50,000 children, young people and young adults in the UK provide more than 50 hours of unpaid care a week to their loved ones, and more than 3,000 children between five and nine take on heavy caring responsibilities.
In my role as APPG chair, along with the hon. Member for Mid Sussex, we are calling on the Government to consider three significant things. First, we must find ways to better recognise young carers. I speak regularly to young carers across my Harlow constituency, and many of them do not realise that they are young carers until they are much older; other MPs would say the same. Secondly, we have to look at how we train teachers. I will not reiterate the story I have told a number of times in this place, but as a teacher I missed that one of my students was a young carer until it came to parents evening, and that is always in my mind. Thirdly, we must ensure that all schools have a young carers lead.
I am pleased to hear from comments made by Ministers and MPs that the Government are listening and taking action to support our young carers and young adult carers. I ask the Government to think also about the transition from being a young carer. Sometimes, the person has got older and become an adult carer; sometimes, tragically, they stop having caring responsibilities for other reasons, such as bereavement. We need to think about how we support those young carers and adult carers if that is the case.
Samantha Niblett (South Derbyshire) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend for his dedication and commitment to young carers, though I know he does not support just young carers. He has the Neurological and Physical Abilitation centre in his constituency, and knows that one of my constituents, 11-year-old Alf, utilises that service. Alf’s mum, Emma, is an incredible advocate for her son and is desperately trying to get the support she needs. She gets 10 hours support for him during term time and 20 hours during the holidays, but Derbyshire county council has recently said no to any more support, including overnight care for just one day a week to help Emma to not reach breaking point. Although my hon. Friend is talking admirably about young carers, does he agree—perhaps the Minister will address this in responding to this brilliant debate—that the new national care service, which is coming in to support older people, should extend to support disabled children and unpaid carers so that they can get timely, flexible support, including overnight care where needed, to prevent parents and carers from reaching breaking point?
Chris Vince
I thank my hon. Friend for her contribution and for her visit to Harlow to see NAPA at first hand. I pay tribute to the work that NAPA does in my constituency. I am sorry to hear about the case of her constituent. I hope that she is able to lobby the county council and get the situation sorted. I hope also that the Minister and those who are introducing the national care service will consider what she said regarding support for disabled children. NAPA is a fantastic organisation but not everyone can afford or have access to that support. The difference NAPA has made to young people with cerebral palsy is significant. We can see the huge difference in their quality of life because of the support they get from NAPA. I thank my hon. Friend for raising that and pay tribute to David and all those who work at NAPA.
I also take this opportunity to pay tribute to some of the schools in my constituency, which do fantastic work to support young carers, particularly the Mark Hall school—I had the pleasure of inviting some of their young carers to Parliament—and Saint Nicholas school, as well as Purford Green primary school and many others. I ask that when the Government consider the national care service—I am so pleased the Prime Minister is incredibly committed to it—the important role of young carers and young adult carers is considered as part of the tapestry of carers, which obviously also includes adult carers and kinship carers. I hope that the national care service will provide support to all unpaid carers.
As hon. Members may be aware, I previously worked for a charity that supports young carers. That is part of the reason I am so passionate about this subject. To some extent, we have a postcode lottery when it comes to support for young carers and young adult carers. Often that support is provided by charities such as the one I worked for. If we are honest with ourselves, successive Governments have relied heavily on the charity sector because they have seen it as a cheaper option, but funding for charities is short term and not always consistent across the country. If the national care service is to get to the heart of the problem, it will address that issue. A previous Labour Prime Minister described charity as a “grey loveless thing”. I think we are in a very different place now, but we should not use charities because they are cheaper. We should work with charities because they have the expertise. We have mentioned some of those charities in this debate already.
Of course, caring for someone who we love can be a real honour. Often when I talk to carers and young carers they do not even think about being carers; they do it because they love that person and believe it to be the right thing to do. However, we must recognise that it can also be extremely challenging. I pay tribute to all unpaid carers in my constituency and beyond who absolutely deserve our thanks and admiration but also our support. The theme going through this debate is the need for action and not just words. After all, who cares for the carers?
Alison Hume (Scarborough and Whitby) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Barker. I thank the hon. Member for Mid Sussex (Alison Bennett) on securing this important debate. This is a debate that matters to millions of people across the country, not least because so many unpaid carers shoulder responsibilities that our health and social care systems could not do without.
Around 4.7 million people in England provide unpaid care for a family member or friend. I am one of them. Like many mothers, I did not think of myself as an unpaid carer at first, because when you are a parent of a disabled child, you just assume that caring is part of the package. Yet too often that commitment comes at significant financial cost.
For many people, caring is a full-time job and the hours required make it impossible to stay in paid employment, forcing families into impossible choices. I myself changed careers to accommodate my son’s needs, but I was one of the lucky ones. Every day, about 1,500 people are forced to leave the workforce because of caring responsibilities. Over the last two years, more than 1 million people have done so.
One of my constituents recently had to leave her job to care for her eight-year-old autistic son, because his needs could not be met through existing educational provision. She told me:
“We are under immense emotional, financial and practical pressure, yet we feel we have been left to cope alone.”
Another constituent, Steve, and his partner, Sindy, care for their 26-year-old son, who has severe learning difficulties. They recently brought him back to the family home due to safety concerns and, when exploring other services, they encountered a shortage of suitable supported living placements in Scarborough. Like countless other families, they stepped in because there was simply nowhere else for their son to go. These families do not complain. They do not ask for special treatment. They simply want the right support at the right time. Yet too often they find themselves battling systems that are fragmented, overstretched and difficult to navigate.
I was honoured recently to welcome HRH the Princess Royal, Princess Anne, to Scarborough to meet staff and volunteers at Carers Plus Yorkshire, many of whom are unpaid carers themselves. It was wonderful to see the joy that the royal visit brought to these people. I am really grateful for the work that Carers Plus Yorkshire does. At a time when more people are living longer and more children and adults are living with disabilities or long-term conditions, the number of these wonderful unpaid carers is only going to grow. That means supporting carers is not simply an act of compassion, but an economic necessity.
I greatly welcome the Government’s commitment to reforming social care by creating a national care service. For far too long, reforming social care has been labelled as too difficult. Carers deserve better than warm words. They deserve a system that works. Unpaid carers save this country billions of pounds every year. They care for our children, our parents, our partners and our neighbours.
I am really pleased that we are going to have an unpaid carers’ champion. I would be grateful if the Minister could outline in his closing remarks what further steps the Government will take to provide financial support for unpaid carers and to ensure that social care reform delivers real and lasting change for unpaid carers and our families.
Helen Maguire (Epsom and Ewell) (LD)
It is an absolute pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Barker. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Sussex (Alison Bennett) for securing this important and timely debate.
Unpaid carers are the unsung heroes of England’s health and social care system. Without their dedication and sacrifice, the whole health and social care system would have collapsed by now.
There are so many different types of unpaid carers. Unpaid carers are young or old, working full time or part time, in school or further education, unemployed or retired. However, all unpaid carers are bound by their dedication to looking after a parent, a child, a sibling or a partner or loved one. They are also tragically united by many worries: how long they, their health and bank accounts can keep going, and how they will overcome all the barriers, unnecessary hurdles and lack of Government support.
Let us talk about the Williams family. It is made up of Sarah, David and their two young children. They are no exception to all of this. David, through no fault of his own, develops a serious health condition that leaves him needing substantial daily care. Sarah becomes his unpaid carer, because the family, like so many, cannot afford expensive professional care. To do so, Sarah reduces her working hours to manage David’s personal care, appointments, medication and domestic needs. She helps him to get out of bed, changes his clothes, helps him to shower, administers his medication, drives him to appointments, does the school run, cooks dinner, cleans the house, pays the bills, and looks after their children.
As a result, the household income falls while expenses continue to rise. Over time, the situation begins to affect the whole family. Sarah is exhausted and stressed, and her own health begins to suffer. She is increasingly isolated, with little opportunity for respite or socialisation because of the all-encompassing nature of her responsibilities. She struggles to spend quality time with her children and misses important school and extracurricular events. The children also take on additional responsibilities at home, including helping their mother to care for their father. They are forced to grow up quickly, with less time for their homework, activities and friends.
Financial pressures create further problems. The family falls behind on bills and they have to use their savings to cover everyday expenses, but eventually their savings run out. The family are then forced to move to cheaper accommodation, which is cramped and not fit for David’s care needs. As time passes, Sarah’s employment prospects deteriorate because of the time she has spent outside of work caring for David. She has lost opportunities for promotion, built up less pension entitlement and now has very limited financial means. David feels guilty that his illness is placing such a burden on his family, while Sarah is exhausted, stressed and feeling trapped between needing to work to earn an income, caring for David and supporting their children.
The Williams family might be hypothetical, but their experiences are far from uncommon. According to the 2021 census, there are 5.8 million Sarahs in the UK, providing unpaid care.
Anna Dixon
Obviously, most unpaid carers are women and the sacrifice they make not only affects them in the short term but feeds into their poverty in later life through the gender pension gap. Does the hon. Member recognise that?
Helen Maguire
Absolutely. I referred to that, and the care also affects their career prospects.
The care that unpaid carers provide is worth an estimated £152 billion annually, which is equivalent to the annual NHS budget. The 2021 census also found that in England and Wales, women are more likely to provide unpaid care than men, with women accounting for 59% of unpaid carers.
The number of unpaid carers has risen by 70% in the past two decades, according to the Institute for Public Policy Research, and 1.7 million of the 5.8 million unpaid carers provide 50 or more hours of care every single week. In England and Wales, women aged between 75 and 79 are most likely to provide 50 or more hours of care a week, while among men it is those aged between 85 and 89.
The sacrifice to step up and work as an unpaid carer is not without significant impact. Evidence consistently shows that unpaid carers experience worse health outcomes than non-carers. The 2021 census in England and Wales found that around one in four carers reported “not good” health, compared with fewer than one in five non-carers. The GP patient survey in 2025 found that 72% of carers said they had a physical or mental health condition or illness. An academic study that analysed the GP patient survey data found that for those providing care for 50 or more hours a week, the health impact of being a carer is equivalent to their losing 18 days of full health each year.
The economic and employment prospects of unpaid carers are also heavily impacted. Census data shows that nearly 3 million people in the UK balance unpaid care with paid employment. Polling by Carers UK suggests that the number could actually be much higher, with one in five workers, or 6.7 million people, providing unpaid care. In addition, 69% of carers who are employees report not having focused on their career as much as they would have liked to, 61% said that caring has impacted the type of employment they have taken on and 21% said that they had taken on a lower paid or more junior role that better fitted with their caring responsibilities.
This polling also found that in the past two years 1.1 million people have left employment to provide care. That is equivalent to around 1,500 people leaving the workforce every single day, which is an increase of 150% compared with polling in 2019 that showed the figure was 600 a day.
Jim Shannon
I thank the hon. Lady for her contribution to the debate. She is focusing clearly on those in work. I was sitting there thinking about the young carers I first met, who were between 11 to 17 years old. The impact on them is clear and graphic. Their work and their education suffers. When they go home from school they have to do their homework and have to look after their mum, dad or siblings, so the impact on them is even greater than normal. Does the hon. Lady agree that for those in education, there is a big impact as well?
Helen Maguire
I absolutely agree.
WPI Economics research found that being out of work is the single strongest quantitative predictor of poverty for unpaid carers. Those negative impacts of caring are particularly felt among under-represented groups. Ethnic minority carers are more likely to be struggling financially and have concerns around services not meeting their needs in comparison with white British carers. Similarly, LGBT+ carers are more likely to be struggling financially and more likely to say that caring has impacted on their mental health in comparison with their heterosexual counterparts.
The Liberal Democrats have always been the party of carers. We have campaigned to ensure that they have the financial resources, training, support, rights, respite and access to services that they need to live their own lives to the fullest and look after their loved ones. We are proud of the successes that we have had so far in helping unpaid carers, including introducing the Carer’s Leave Act 2023 and securing increasing carer’s allowance in 2024.
However, much more must be done. We are happy to see that social care has moved up the agenda under the new Labour leadership, and we look forward to continuing to work constructively with the Prime Minister on this topic. However, the failure in social care is devastating family finances, forcing thousands to sell their homes, crippling the NHS with delayed discharges and unnecessary admissions and bankrupting local authorities. We will make sure that unpaid family carers are not overlooked as the whole system is reformed. They cannot continue to be seen as a never-ending source of labour that will always be there to cover the shortcomings of state support.
Our first test of Labour’s social care reforms will be whether family carers are front and centre with guaranteed rights. Those must include respite care and a full replacement of the broken carer’s allowance so that families can afford the care. Could the Minister clarify whether working-age adults will also be in scope for the national care service?
The Liberal Democrats will ensure that unpaid carers have a fair deal by increasing the carer’s allowance by £20 a week and expanding the eligibility for it; introducing a statutory guarantee of regular respite breaks for unpaid carers; establishing paid carers leave and building on the entitlement to unpaid leave previously secured by the Liberal Democrats; creating a carer support service in every hospital to support carers before, during and after a loved one leaves hospital and to involve them in their discharge planning; making caring a protected characteristic under the Equality Act 2010; and requiring employers to make reasonable adjustments to enable employees with caring responsibilities to provide that care and launching a young carers pupil premium as part of an education guarantee for young carers. We also want to see the NHS do more to identify and support unpaid carers, including by promoting the health and wellbeing of carers as part of integrated care board plans.
We are also calling on the Government to establish a new £75 million a year national scheme that would fund guaranteed respite care in every part of the country. That would alleviate the burden on carers and prevent hospital admissions due to carers becoming too exhausted to look after their loved ones. Unpaid carers deserve the right to a break. Many are overwhelmed and at breaking point because of their caring role. Being able to take a break is often described by carers as the No. 1 way to prevent burnout and in turn reduce pressure on our health services. That is particularly important as one in three NHS workers are unpaid carers themselves, and 65% of us will become unpaid carers at some point in our lives.
I urge the Minister to reflect on all the contributions and calls made by myself and other Members here today. We cannot let this crucial opportunity to strengthen support for those who provide essential care to others and reduce the risk of burnout among the millions of unpaid carers on whom our health and care system depend pass by. We must ensure that unpaid carers and the people that they care for receive the long-overdue support that they truly deserve.
Dr Neil Shastri-Hurst (Solihull West and Shirley) (Con)
It is always a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Barker. I congratulate the hon. Member for Mid Sussex (Alison Bennett) on securing the debate and all hon. and right hon. Members on their very thoughtful and, at times, moving contributions.
As we heard during the debate, across the United Kingdom 5.8 million people provide unpaid care. Those carers collect prescriptions, organise appointments and help with all aspects of personal care, and many do so either before or after they have done a full working day. For millions of families up and down the country, this has become part and parcel of ordinary life, but we should never underestimate the toll it takes over time. Of those 5.8 million carers, 1.7 million provide at least 50 hours of care each week—more than a full-time working week—and they often do it alongside employment or while raising a family or managing their own personal health needs.
Of course, caring responsibilities rarely fit neatly within the timetable that defines our normal week. Likewise, the way that care, and the need for it, presents itself is often varied and complex. For some, it can come with little forewarning; they may need it after a sudden accident, such as a catastrophic spinal injury. For others, it comes much more incrementally, over a period of time: needing help with shopping becomes needing help with medication, or an occasional visit becomes a daily necessity. Eventually, it can feel as though it is becoming all consuming.
Clearly, individuals must adapt because someone they love needs that help. However, our services must adapt, too. Too often we assume rather than asking whether the person who is undertaking the care is able to manage, and whether they have been shown what to do or how to use the necessary equipment and so forth. It is worth remembering that a relative’s presence is not in itself a care plan, and nor should their willingness to help be taken as proof that they do not need any support themselves.
We have heard a plethora of examples of what happens when those questions are ignored. One can only imagine the frustration encountered by so many carers who are forced to describe their circumstances, often repeatedly, only for nothing to happen. That risks leaving the carer carrying entirely the same burden and responsibility as they had beforehand, but with less confidence that if they ask in the future it will make an iota of difference, and consequently, potentially, with declining physical and mental wellbeing. Others are forced to cut back on essentials just to make ends meet.
These individuals deserve a clear plan from the Government. Carers frequently find themselves putting the needs of those they care for above their own. As we have heard, employment can become more challenging, which often leads people to reduce their hours in order to make caring manageable, which of course has a knock-on impact on their income. Some are ultimately forced to leave work, which brings further financial pressures and often makes returning to the workplace much harder. As a society, we should be helping people preserve their working life wherever possible. Work provides not only financial freedom, but an environment where carers are recognised for achievements beyond their incredibly commendable responsibilities as carers.
We must remember, too, that many older carers are managing their own fragility, and that younger carers are often in education and their own childhoods can be affected. Support must reflect people’s different circumstances rather than assuming that every family can manage in entirely the same way. Alan Milburn’s interim review identified around 300,000 informal carers aged between 16 and 24. It described young carers as
“one of the least visible groups in the NEET conversation and one of the most systematically miscounted.”
A young person who misses college, declines an apprenticeship interview or struggles to attend a job or university may be managing responsibilities that somebody has simply not asked about. In those circumstances, it cannot be right that their commitment to a loved one should cost them opportunities.
The previous Conservative Government took action through the 2018 carers action plan, the carers innovation fund and support for statutory carer’s leave. I welcome this Government’s publication of the unpaid carers action plan in July. The task now is to ensure that those commitments actually reach the people the plan is intended to help. With that in mind, I have three specific questions for the Minister.
First, with NHS England to be abolished by April 2027, who will have ownership of the actions in the unpaid carers plan thereafter? Secondly, NHS England currently has powers to support service integration between local authorities and the NHS and for the functions of the better care fund, a major source of funding and resourcing for unpaid carers. The BCF in its current form requires the NHS and local authorities to pool budgets for the purpose of service integration, as there is a requirement to use section 75 agreements. That means that to pool budgets, the BCF must involve local authorities.
The impact assessment for the Health Bill sets out that, following the abolition of NHS England, that function will be conferred on the Secretary of State. In addition, what is currently a mandatory requirement on the use of section 75 will change to a discretionary power. In short, the Secretary of State will retain the power to require pooled budgets should they wish, but that will not be the default position, as is currently the case. Does the Minister share the concerns of carers’ charities that this change may lead to significant cuts for schemes that support unpaid carers?
Thirdly, the Prime Minister set out in his conference speech the bare bones of a plan for a national care service. The Government have of course proposed to fund that through reforms to the triple lock. However, those reforms will, self-evidently, not be sufficient to fund and deliver such a service. Notwithstanding the statement in the main Chamber earlier today, the details of the funding still appear to be somewhat lacking. Much more detail of what the Government are proposing is needed. Do the Government intend to set out further details of how the national care service will be funded, and will the Minister rule out increased borrowing or tax rises to fund it?
The Conservatives look forward to working constructively on this issue. It is an important issue that we all face in our inbox every day, but for too long, across the political spectrum, we have kicked it down the track and not got a grip of it. In that spirit, we look forward to the ongoing cross-party talks on the issue. Ultimately, the marker of success must be whether carers can obtain the help that they need, are able to access respite breaks when they need them, and can look after their own health and wellbeing at the same time. That of course requires proper policy consideration, not just headline announcements, and I hope the Minister is able to provide greater clarity on that front today.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Mr James Frith)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Barker. I begin by congratulating the hon. Member for Mid Sussex (Alison Bennett) on securing this important debate. I also thank Members from across the House for their thoughtful contributions.
Addressing me, the hon. Member for Mid Sussex gave a roll call of some of the welcome policy announcements that we have seen already. I know that an appetite is maintained for more, and we will get into that, but it was great to hear recognition of our action plan, of the announcement of a champion for unpaid carers, of the Prime Minister’s relentless historical, current and future focus on social care and a national care service, of the minimum wage link to earnings in this sector and of the increase in allowances.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell), joined by the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) and my hon. Friend and constituency neighbour the Member for Heywood and Middleton North (Mrs Blundell), rightly raised a particular issue. Indeed, I think that, consistently, every single Member in the Chamber made the point that I will distil to the absolute, fundamental need for respite. We understand that too often caring is a relentless duty. It is unending love, and that love is real, but so is the toil and the demand on unpaid carers, whom we are here to speak to and appeal for today.
Unpaid carers make an extraordinary contribution to families, communities and our country. They are often the person holding everything together. They provide unwavering support to the person or people they care for, often while balancing employment, education, parenting and their own health needs. This Government are acting now to ensure that unpaid carers receive the right support, at the right time. The cross-Government unpaid carers action plan brings together work from across health, social care, education, employment and the benefits system. It is an improved recognition of unpaid carers that strengthens the way support is offered to help carers reach their full potential and live their own fulfilling lives.
The Secretary of State for Health and Social Care announced this summer—to great cheer from those of us in the audience—her intention to appoint an unpaid carers champion who will bring the commitments in the action plan to life and bring our responsibility to bear. Our carers champion will work across Government, the health and social care sector and carers organisations to provide advice and challenge on where we can go further.
The Government are making carers more visible, empowering their voices in care planning, joining up services and reducing the practical burdens they face. A new “my carer” section in the NHS app will give carers clearer routes, clearer information and relevant support, and will help to streamline the tasks that they undertake on behalf of the people they care for.
[Valerie Vaz in the Chair]
Our task is simple: carers have to be recognised as partners in care, with their own needs and ambitions. We understand that caring can affect household finances and a person’s ability to remain in work. The Government raised the carer’s allowance weekly earnings limit by a record amount in April 2025 and again in 2026-27. A public consultation on employment rights for unpaid carers and parents of seriously ill children closed on 1 September. We expect to conclude the review this winter with a full consultation, and we will respond to it with findings and a road map for potential reforms.
Members rightly raised the availability of practical support, including short breaks and respite—every Member referred to the need for that. A postcode lottery occurs too frequently. I am sorry to say that, because of the legacy of the last Government, that will take some time to rectify, but we are making progress in redressing the patchiness of public services left by the last lot.
This Government have brought in the better care fund, which provides a framework of more than £9 billion for integrated care boards, in a bid to patch up the patchiness left by the last Government. We speak frequently in this Chamber and the main Chamber about the need to ensure a universal service. It is for us as MPs as well as for the Government to ensure that there is better joined-up care and that funding can be used for carer support and respite, including short breaks and the peer support that we know is needed.
A fellow champion of carers—the heavyweight champion of Harlow, my hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Chris Vince)—made the interesting point that there should be a young carers lead in all schools. I have been a school governor. The best schools and school leadership teams know the circumstances of our children, and we have a Government who not only understand the need for breakfast clubs, but recognise the importance of both the breakfast and the club. I hope that my hon. Friend’s idea will grow and go out into the governor world as a suitable idea. I do not think it is necessarily for the Government to mandate that, but it is a terrific idea. In developing those plans, perhaps he and friends will make representations to the champion that we will appoint so that young carers in particular get the support that they need. It is sad to think that there are undiscovered young carers. That is very poignant. The need for respite is very real, and so is the cost in terms of the childhood they are missing out on.
We must also recognise the effect of sustained care responsibilities on mental health, and provide mental health support, such as through the talking therapy service, the self-referral system, the NHS app, increased evidence-based talking therapies and digital interventions, and earlier support in schools.
My hon. Friend the Member for Amber Valley (Linsey Farnsworth) raised the issue of dementia. Today is the second consecutive day that she and I have spoken about the issue. I repeat my commitment that she will be involved in the first-ever modern service framework on dementia and frailty, which is to come. I look forward to working with her on that.
My hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Alison Hume) always has nice things to say to colleagues and friends across the House. Support for unpaid caring is inseparable from the future of adult social care across all ages. My hon. Friend the Member for Cannock Chase (Josh Newbury) rightly talked about the need for a distinct older care service, as carers will get older and need care themselves.
At its best, social care is transformational, and our long-term ambition is to have a national care service that is person-centred, sees the person and their circumstances, integrates with health services and is preventive, giving people greater choice, control, dignity and independence. We are committed to building that service, but it must be informed by the undoubtedly exemplary work we will see from Baroness Casey. We will build on the consensus she is seeking from the public as she asks what they want, need and expect from the system. I look forward to seeing that work, which will address difficult questions about who should get support, what families can reasonably expect and who is responsible.
The hon. Member for Solihull West and Shirley (Dr Shastri-Hurst) asked who is responsible; that is a good question. I will ensure that the changes to NHS England and the forthcoming plans are in the purview of the work that Baroness Casey is undertaking. As to a commitment on tax and borrowing, he mistakes the level at which I currently sit in Government—I will gladly answer his question if they ever dare to give me responsibility for such things—but it is a good question.
In the meantime, greater investment is already coming, alongside better workforce support, digitisation, a stronger voice for people receiving care, and closer integration across services through the unpaid carers action plan, the appointment of an unpaid carers champion, improvements on carer ID through the NHS app, stronger financial employment support, better education support for young carers, more access to mental health services and more effective local planning. We are taking practical steps now; it is a Labour Government doing this.
The hon. Member for Mid Sussex asked about identifying young carers—I recently raised the poignant issue of undiscovered young carers. This is a collaborative job. It falls to the local authority and to school leadership, and it must fall to integrated care boards to work with their colleagues in local government and local education to ensure that all children’s contexts are understood and known.
We are listening to carers, who must challenge services where support falls short. Unpaid carers enable millions of people to live with dignity, independence, love and connection. Their contribution must not be taken for granted. They get and deserve our recognition, our respect and reliable support. This Government are determined to turn that commitment into lasting change.
Alison Bennett
I appreciate the opportunity to wind up. I realise that I was remiss in not declaring an interest at the start. As the hon. Member for Harlow (Chris Vince) pointed out, I am the new chair of the APPG for young carers and young adult carers—so new, in fact, that I forgot to declare it.
I thank all hon. Members for their speeches and interventions. I can say to the hon. Member for Cannock Chase (Josh Newbury) that I have had a similar surgery, in which somebody asked about carer’s allowance and the state pension. I was very pleased that the right hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) mentioned the work of Siobhan O’Dwyer at the University of Birmingham. The hon. Member for Amber Valley (Linsey Farnsworth) talked about her family’s experience of dementia. I thank the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) for his constant kind words and support, and for giving us the Northern Ireland perspective.
The hon. Member for Heywood and Middleton North (Mrs Blundell) talked about Carers Week and the Rochdale carers’ hub. I did a similar event for Carers Support West Sussex. The hon. Member for Shipley (Anna Dixon) talked about Freda and her mum, and her own lifetime of working to support carers. I thank the hon. Member for Harlow—I will call him my hon. Friend—for his work fighting for young carers, both as a teacher and now in this place.
The hon. Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Alison Hume) shared stories of her own caring responsibilities, and my hon. Friend the Member for Epsom and Ewell (Helen Maguire) set out the Williams family story, which gets repeated everywhere. I thank the hon. Member for Solihull West and Shirley (Dr Shastri-Hurst) for putting those clear questions to the Minister.
Finally, I appreciate the Minister recognising that, although there is consensus in this Chamber, there is still much more work to be done.
Motion lapsed (Standing Order No. 10(6)).
Smoke-free UK
(1 day, 9 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
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con) [R]
I beg to move,
That this House has considered progress towards a smokefree UK.
It is a pleasure to serve again under your chairmanship, Ms Vaz, and to open the debate. This is a vital topic, and one I am proud to have campaigned on for many years—probably more than I care to remember. I declare an interest as co-chairman of the all-party parliamentary group on smoking and health. Since I was elected, it has been tremendous to see the progress we have made on combating smoking and, indeed, increasing the health of the population generally.
Last week, new smoking prevalence data showed that, for the first time, less than 10% of the UK population smoke. We are worlds away from the 1970s, when almost half the population smoked. We certainly do not want to go back to that position. However, there is still some way to go, and this debate is an important reminder that the job is not done. Although we are making excellent progress, including with the passage of the Tobacco and Vapes Act 2026 earlier this year, we should not say that the job is done.
Smoking remains one of the leading causes of premature death and disability in the UK. It is responsible for around 80,000 deaths every year. Cancer Research UK says smoking is responsible for around 160 cancer cases every day, or 57,700 cases each year. Tobacco is a uniquely harmful product. It can kill up to two thirds of lifelong users and is responsible for at least 16 types of cancer.
The impact goes beyond health. Around one in nine working-age adults in England who smoke are out of work because of ill health or disability. That is around 700,000 people. The NHS continues to feel the pressure, with around 100 GP appointments every hour linked to smoking-related illness. In fact, the total cost of smoking to society and the economy in England alone is estimated at £44.8 billion a year.
Smoking is still a huge problem, but it is one that it is within the Government’s power to fix. Cessation services, mass media campaigns and changes to the age of sale are all tools that can be used to achieve a smoke-free country.
This Government have shown admirable ambition in bringing back the smoke-free generation policy originally proposed by my right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond and Northallerton (Rishi Sunak). I and many others worked so hard behind the scenes to get that policy on the radar—in fact, I am still waiting for his thanks for the speech I made in this Chamber before he announced the policy at party conference.
That policy is transformative when it comes to stopping young people starting the habit, saving them from a lifetime of addiction and ill health. However, it does not do much for the 4.9 million people who currently continue to smoke. The previous Government had a clear plan to end smoking, which expired in 2022, but also a national smoking prevalence target of 5% by 2030. Even with recent progress, it is unlikely that that target will be met.
Concerningly, we are seeing more young people take up smoking and particularly vaping. The Teachers’ Union Behaviour in Schools survey found that 16% of pupils vaped during class—I find that hard to believe. It found that 62% of pupils repeatedly left lessons to vape, and that 39% of teachers had encountered pupils unable to concentrate because they were distracted or affected by nicotine, although I suspect the figure is actually even higher. It also found that 32% of teachers had observed peer pressure on non-vapers to vape. Schools have an important role in educating children and young people about the risks of smoking and nicotine use, preventing use on school premises and supporting children who need help. However, schools cannot be expected to solve a wider public health and regulatory problem.
When asked if Smokefree 2030 is still the Government’s target, various Ministers have responded by saying that the Government are “going even further” by creating a smoke-free generation. With respect, the previous Government also legislated for a smoke-free generation while having a target for current smokers to quit. Cancer Research UK has already found that England is not on track to become smoke-free by 2030, and smoking rates remain much higher in more deprived communities.
The Government must go further and faster or set a new target and publish a clear road map for reaching it. Can the Minister tell us what her ambitions are for reducing smoking and whether she will look at introducing a target for reducing smoking to not just 5% but below 1% in all communities across the UK? We need an ambition for current smokers that matches the ambition for the smoke-free generation of “Stopping the start”.
Targets can be a helpful tool for focusing attention on a particular area of importance. We have seen that through the truly remarkable success in reducing smoking rates among pregnant women—something I have campaigned for a long time. The last Government just about achieved the objective, and smoking pregnancy rates are now at their lowest rate ever, at just 4.2%, down from 9.6% in 2020. That means that more than 70 babies’ lives have been saved through preventing stillbirths caused by smoking during pregnancy. We are currently in Baby Loss Awareness Week, which demonstrates the importance of this issue.
Once again, the previous Government set a clear national target, designed targeted policies, including financial incentives, and integrated them into existing pathways—and it worked. I am so pleased that this Government have committed to continue funding financial incentives for pregnant women, but I also want us to learn lessons from that success. What we have achieved with pregnant women can be a blueprint for other at-risk populations. I hope the Minister will meet the all-party parliamentary group on smoking and health, as well as Action on Smoking and Health, to discuss how this approach can be applied to other at-risk groups as a road map to a smoke-free country.
I was really pleased that £5 million in financial incentives for pregnant women have been maintained for the next three years. That investment, alongside the £153 million for local authorities through the public health grant and funding from ICBs, means that more money is being invested in cessation support than ever before. However, ICB budgets are no longer being ringfenced, which means there is a risk that services are decommissioned, as we have seen in parts of the country, or see their funding reduced in NHS settings.
The Labour manifesto pledged to introduce opt-out cessation support in all in-patient settings. Can the Minister clarify what progress has been made on that manifesto pledge in this Parliament? Is the funding going to the NHS enough to deliver on that pledge? Has her Department been monitoring potential reductions in services due to ICB reductions? Will she ensure that cessation funds within the public health grant continue to be protected by ringfence?
Of course, there are broader activities, beyond cessation support, that reduce smoking rates. Mass media campaigns are one important part of the puzzle, and it would be good to hear how much is being spent on them. I would also like to hear from the Minister what plans she has to communicate the smoke-free generation to the public via a media campaign. Those are clear ways of reaching all sorts of people.
The good news is that we can be ambitious. We have at our fingertips a source of funding that is as yet untapped: a levy on the tobacco manufacturers, which would raise an estimated £5 billion over five years. The model that the APPG put forward would not allow that to be passed on to consumers. It is something of a unicorn policy, in that it raises revenue and is hugely popular with the public. Around 76% of adults in England support a levy, and the proposal enjoys majority support from voters from all political parties, with only 7% opposed.
The Prime Minister has indicated that he wants to review business rates to raise revenue from businesses that
“do not make a positive contribution to…communities.”
If that is the case, big tobacco should be first in line. It is right that those responsible for the huge costs of smoking to our society, our NHS and our population’s health are the ones picking up the bill, not the taxpayer. I hope the Minister will seriously consider this proposal and suggest it to the Chancellor for his Budget in a couple of weeks’ time.
We must all be careful to call out the continuing interference by the tobacco industry in today’s world, particularly in politics. British American Tobacco sponsored Reform’s party conference, where its “inconvenience store” was plastered with a series of “shocking” mock health warnings. Reform’s party leadership have made it very clear that they support big tobacco being able to continue to sell lethal products to the next generation of children. They are completely out of touch with the public, but also with their own voters, who overwhelmingly support ending the devastating harms of tobacco in this country.
To be clear, there has always been a strong level of cross-party support on issues such as tobacco control and reducing smoking rates, as the Leader of the Opposition’s conference speech showed, and that should continue, both for health and due to the economic costs. It is disappointing that some parties in particular reject that and are all too willing to listen when money gets thrown around.
We have to remember that at the heart of this issue there are still 4.9 million smokers. They are our friends, family and colleagues, and many are absolutely desperate to quit but stuck in a steady cycle of addiction. Our all-party group was recently delighted to host a roundtable with the APPG on poverty and inequality to discuss the links between smoking and deprivation. My friend and co-chair, the hon. Member for City of Durham (Mary Kelly Foy), will share some of the discussion in her speech, but I want to reflect on how impactful it was to hear from those with lived experience. We heard from an ex-smoker, a mother, that her addiction to tobacco was so strong that she would buy cigarettes before buying food for her children. Tobacco came before everything. That cannot be acceptable in today’s society. We also heard from Dr Liam Loftus, who is delivering smoking-cessation support at Cambridge city food bank. He is not waiting for smokers to find him but going to where they are already seeking support and being proactive.
A road map—a clear plan—could help us to learn from pockets of best practice and to scale up interventions that truly turn the dial on smoking rates in this country. I look forward to hearing the contributions from colleagues and, indeed, from the Front Benchers, and I trust that we can continue to work towards eliminating smoking in this country.
Mary Kelly Foy (City of Durham) (Lab) [R]
It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Vaz. I am so pleased to speak in this debate and to have secured it alongside my APPG co-chair, the hon. Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman). As co-chairs of the APPG on smoking and health, we will always champion cross-party support for ending the epidemic in the UK.
This debate is about what progress has been made towards a smoke-free country and what more we could do. I want to start by recognising just how much we have achieved in the last five years alone, thanks to the actions of both the previous Government and the current one. The Tobacco and Vapes Act became law. Smoking rates have fallen to below 10% across the UK for the first time ever, and rates are falling fastest among 18 to 24-year-olds.
The rate of smoking in pregnancy is at a record low of just 4.2%, saving babies’ lives and supporting families to have the best start in life. Record levels of funding are going to stop-smoking services. Co-ordinated action among agencies also means that, despite claims to the contrary from the tobacco industry, official data continues to show that robust enforcement is controlling the UK illicit market.
I am particularly proud that smoking rates in the north-east of England have fallen by a staggering 67% since 2005—the largest drop in England. That is great to see, not just for my constituents in the City of Durham but for communities right across the north-east, an area with some of the worst health inequalities in the UK. Much of that success can be attributed to the regional leadership and support of Fresh. The experience of the north-east clearly shows the huge benefits of establishing expert-led, regional tobacco control programmes to support local areas, as we have had in the north-east over the last 22 years. I am sure that all regions would benefit from this approach. There was a time when smoking rates below 10% in the region would have been unthinkable—a pipe dream—but in our mission to end smoking we have achieved many unthinkable things, and we have never stopped pushing for progress.
However, we have not called this debate to pat ourselves on the back and think it is job done—far from it. As we have heard, there are still 4.9 million smokers across the UK, and smoking is increasingly becoming an issue of health inequality. The inequality is stark: if current trends continue, people with a degree will reach smoking rates of less than 1%, while people with no qualifications are not expected to reach that same milestone until 29 years later. That gap should concern us all, because it shows that progress is not being felt equally across society.
I was pleased recently to bring together stakeholders, on behalf of the APPGs on smoking and health and on poverty and inequality, to host a roundtable on the link between smoking and poverty. Smoking is a well-known health issue, but it is also a direct driver of poverty. It is a preventable contributor to the cost of living crisis for millions of people experiencing tobacco addiction. Smoking pushes 417,000 households below the poverty line. Last year, one in four people who smoke went hungry after skipping meals, and people who smoke are nearly three times as likely to use food banks.
The roundtable included some insightful discussions about how we can make support for smoking cessation available in food banks and other community settings— reaching people where they already are and making it easier for them to access support. Moving forward, opt-out support must be the way we work. It would be great to hear from the Minister what progress has been made on the manifesto commitment on opt-out support in routine care.
At the event, I was pleased to hear from Gillian and Hannah, who came to share their lived experience and spoke to us so openly. As the hon. Member for Harrow East alluded to, hearing someone say that they would buy cigarettes before buying food for their children, and that they only ever managed to take their children on holiday once they quit, shows how cessation can give not only freedom from addiction, but financial freedom too.
The good news is that there is something we can do about it. Smoking is not inevitable. Tobacco addiction can be broken with the right support. That is why it is so important for the Government to publish a road map to a smoke-free country that sets out how we can target support to the right people and build on examples of best practice.
We also need a new target. Smokefree 2030 is very unlikely to be met, and a less than 5% prevalence still leaves millions smoking. This Labour Government should be bold and set a date by which we will pledge to see smoking rates below 1% in all groups across society. We can introduce a levy on industry profits to fund programmes to support smokers and still have cash to spare.
We can also use the powers in the Tobacco and Vapes Act to ensure that all tobacco products are comprehensively regulated and to take a balanced approach to vapes and other nicotine products. We need to ensure that a variety of cessation aids, such as medication and vapes, are available to smokers to help them on their quit journey. The recent Cochrane review confirmed the effectiveness of vapes in supporting quitting, and we must not forget that, on average, it takes 30 attempts to quit.
The regulation of vaping products is necessary to reduce their youth appeal, and the Government are right to be pulling multiple levers to achieve that aim, including a crackdown on rogue sellers through new planning powers for councils, the incoming licensing and registration scheme, and the vaping products duty, which came into effect at the start of this month. A road map that situates vaping policy as part of a wider strategy on smoking and public health would help to enhance this long-overdue regulatory agenda. However, it is a complex area; has the Minister considered convening an expert group of some kind?
This Government will be remembered as the Government who signalled the beginning of the end for smoking with the smoke-free generation, but we could be the ones to end smoking for good. I look forward to hearing from the Minister and to working with her to ensure that we do just that.
Several hon. Members rose—
Valerie Vaz (in the Chair)
Order. We can get everyone in if everyone sticks to about five to six minutes. There is possibly a vote or two at 4 o’clock.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
It is always a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Vaz. I thank the hon. Members for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) and for City of Durham (Mary Kelly Foy) for introducing the debate. Both their contributions set the scene incredibly well on an issue that concerns the health of people across the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
The information published by the Library ahead of the debate reminded us that the Conservative party published a Green Paper on this topic in 2019 and that the Labour party has committed to the smoke-free by 2030 ambition. The major political parties and all of us in this Chamber want the same thing: to achieve a smoke-free UK. The introduction of the Tobacco and Vapes Act 2026 has made possible what is hoped to be a smoke-free generation, by prohibiting the sale of tobacco to anyone born on or after 1 January 2009. That will undoubtedly contribute to the continuing decline in the number of adult smokers.
I only ever had a cigarette once. I tell the story because I was only about six years old. You know the way, when you are small, you look at your granda? He was not a big man, but he was my hero because he was my granda. Granda smoked the cigarettes. They were Gallaher’s, and I do not think there was any filter on them. I looked at my granda and said, “Granda, you’re always smoking cigarettes—can I have one?” My granda says, “Yes, you can. Take that there and then take a really deep breath.” And I did—with no filter. Those of a certain generation will remember whenever the po was under the bed; well, I went green and I was violently sick into the po. I always remember that introduction, from my granda—that was a cigarette. Never, ever have I wished to smoke a cigarette, all my life. The Government do not have to worry about me; it will never happen. Nor, I am glad to say, did it happen to any of my children. That is a story with, perhaps, a poignancy—a reminder of what it was like years ago.
In 2024, those aged 45 to 54 had the highest proportion of current smokers, at 12.4% UK-wide. Many of that age group are addicted beyond their control, and deterrence measures alone are likely to be a bigger challenge and potentially less successful. The hon. Member for Harrow East referred to the mother—it is not a condemnation; it is a fact—who would buy a cigarette before getting food on the table. We must recognise that smoking is a serious addiction and acknowledge that many in that age group began smoking without fully understanding the long-term health consequences. Our focus must extend beyond prevention. We must advocate for accessible addiction treatment and practical support for those who want to quit smoking but are struggling to do so.
I understand that the consultation on the tobacco and vapes regulations ended on 2 October. Will the Minister give us some indication of the timescale for the release of the responses to the consultation, and the timescale to take action on those responses? I should have welcomed the Minister to her place; it is always a pleasure to see her and we wish her well in her role.
It was estimated that in 2024 smoking contributed to 15% of all deaths in Northern Ireland, and the costs of treating smoking-related illnesses was estimated at £218 million annually. Those figures are worrying. They indicate that if we achieve a smoke-free United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, it will clearly reduce the financial impacts on the NHS. The same report reflected UK-wide concerns regarding young people vaping, estimating that in Northern Ireland alone 9% of 11 to 16-year-olds use e-cigarettes. Although e-cigarettes may help some adult smokers to move away from tobacco, it is increasingly the case that young people who have never smoked are becoming addicted to vaping. There is a real need to address that in the Government’s consultation on vaping.
I call on the Government to take further action to reduce the appeal of e-cigarettes to children by introducing controls on flavouring and advertising. Alongside stronger enforcement against the illegal sale of e-cigarettes to those under 18, that will contribute to a smoke-free United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, which will ease pressure on our already burdened health service and ensure that the next generation—the ones who come after us—will grow up free from the harms that we have seen smoking cause.
Mary Glindon (Newcastle upon Tyne East and Wallsend) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Vaz. I draw Members’ attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests and to my previous role as chair of the all-party parliamentary group for responsible vaping. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for City of Durham (Mary Kelly Foy) and the hon. Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) on securing this debate, and on their hard work and commitment to ensure that we move towards a smoke-free UK.
Throughout the passage of the Tobacco and Vapes Act 2026, I have been a strong advocate for vaping, because giving smokers choice in how to stop smoking is far more successful than telling them they should stop altogether. Giving smokers a safer way to stop is a choice worth protecting.
The goal of a smoke-free UK is worth backing. The Act ensures young people will avoid ever falling into the trap of addiction. It is now on the statute book, and the test for its success is its delivery. Rules only work if they are enforced on our high streets, not just written on paper, and the biggest threat to this goal is the illicit market.
Illicit tobacco and vapes are untested and untracked, with no age checks and no control on what is in them. The adult who wants the ability to choose an alternative to cigarettes cannot know what they are buying and, even worse, children can get hold of these products. Responsible retailers, including specialist vape shops, are undercut by rogue traders who face no meaningful consequences. The stakes could not be higher. Only last Tuesday, Lord Bichard, chair of National Trading Standards, told the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee that the illegal tobacco trade is directly funding child abuse. That shocks us, and should shock every Member of this House. We can no longer treat this as a sideline issue. It should be the focus of Government attention and the sequencing of Government priorities matters. We must protect our good retailers before we come for their products. The alternative will only tighten the grip that organised crime has on our high streets.
The NHS says that nicotine vaping is less harmful than smoking, and that it is one of the most effective tools for quitting. Smokers using nicotine vapes are roughly twice as likely to quit as those used in traditional non-nicotine replacement products such as patches or gum. Around 5.5 million adults vape in this country, including around 3.3 million former smokers. Some 52% of adult smokers incorrectly believe that vaping is harmful or more harmful than smoking. Vaping is not harmless, but smoking and vaping are not equivalent. The Government must ensure that communication and regulation maintain that distinction and protect the right for vapes to be sold and to be more appealing to adult smokers than cigarettes.
Specialist vape shops are fundamentally different from corner shops, petrol stations and rogue retailers that simply sell vapes alongside other goods. Just as a petrol station selling alcohol is not a specialist alcohol retailer, these businesses should not be regulated as if they were the same. Doing that is pointless and harmful to the responsible industry while rogue retailers continue to sell illegal products to our children.
No retailer should sell vape products to a child. There should be rigorous age verification in shops and online, supported by Challenge 25 trained staff, refusal registers, reliable digital checks and regular test purchasing, rather than sweeping restrictions for responsible retailers.
Parliament has already legislated for a retail licensing scheme. A scheme that separates good retailers from bad is the most effective way to take dangerous illicit products off our streets. It gives councils the ability to identify who is selling these products and act against repeat offenders. But the Government have said that the consultation on licensing scheme will be considered “in due course”. Our high streets cannot afford for the issue to be kicked down the road. My constituents want to know when the consultation will be open, and they want it to be as soon as possible. That is my message to our Minister.
A comprehensive retail and distributor licensing scheme is essential, and the UK Vaping Industry Association has produced a framework called the UKVIA licensing framework. A licence would identify who is selling vaping products, set minimum standards and make repeat offenders lose the right to trade. The UKVIA has proposed penalties of up to £10,000 for retailers selling to children or supplying illicit and non-compliant products, with the proceeds used to strengthen trading standards’ enforcement.
Nearly 390,000 illicit or non-compliant products were identified through research covering 17 councils, but the reported fines for vape offences totalled only £10,700. Small penalties risk becoming a cost of doing business rather than a genuine deterrent. The message should be simple: comply with age verification, product and licensing rules or face penalties of up to £10,000, licence suspension and, for persistent offenders, removal from the market. Only once we have got to grips with illicit trade should we turn to packaging, appearance and display. If rogue traders ignore the rules we have, tougher new ones will be ignored, too, and it is honest retailers and adults who simply want a legal, safe alternative to cigarettes who will suffer.
We all want fewer people smoking, but the fastest way to get there is by backing the legal market—backing adults who are trying to quit and going after the criminals who profit from the illicit trade. We must not make cigarettes comparatively more attractive. The new vaping products duty is charged at £2.20 per 10 ml of vaping liquid. The Government say that vaping remains less harmful than smoking and helps adult smokers to quit, but the new duty risks undermining that objective.
A new report by the Centre for Economics and Business Research estimates that the duty could increase average vape prices by 44% compared with an estimated 4% increase in cigarette prices. Its central model suggests that 946,000 vapers and dual users could move exclusively to smoking, resulting in 1.5 billion additional cigarettes being consumed each year. The same modelling estimates an additional £300 million a year in healthcare and productivity costs, comprising £94 million in healthcare costs and £211 million in lost productivity. Those are modelled outcomes rather than certain forecasts, but they present a serious warning about unintended consequences.
The Government should monitor smoking relapse and quitting rates and illicit market activity closely, and be prepared to revisit the duty if it is pushing adults back towards cigarettes. We can protect children and non-smokers without punishing adults who have quit smoking. Make age verification non-negotiable. Introduce effective licensing and impose penalties of up to £10,000 on rogue retailers while preserving vaping as a vital quitting tool for adult smokers, and help us move towards a smoke-free UK.
Ruth Jones (Newport West and Islwyn) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Vaz. I thank the hon. Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) and my hon. Friend the Member for City of Durham (Mary Kelly Foy) for securing this important debate.
I will start by declaring a lifelong professional interest in this vital issue. As a physiotherapist for more than 30 years, I have seen at first hand the effect of smoking on initiating and exacerbating things such as asthma and chronic obstructive airways disease. Passive smoking will hopefully decelerate now, but people who have never smoked do get lung cancer as a result. I am extremely passionate about the importance of smoking cessation to public health, and the critical role that physiotherapists can play in supporting such interventions.
As we have already heard from the hon. Members who opened the debate, smoking remains the leading cause of preventable death in the UK, killing an estimated 80,000 people every year, including almost 4,000 people in Wales. One in every 10 deaths in Wales among those over the age of 35 continues to be as a result of smoking. Although that is profound for the families of the people who have died, it also has a major impact on our NHS. Public Health Wales estimates that every year in Wales more than 17,000 hospital admissions are attributable to smoking, and smoking-related costs to the Welsh NHS and social care system are estimated at over £650 million a year. That is for a country with a population of about 3 million, so Members can see just how expensive the problem is. However, the full estimated costs are so much greater, because smoking remains a major drag on productivity and our environment.
As we have also heard today already, the costs of smoking are not borne equally; individuals from deprived backgrounds are the worst affected and smoking is a persistent driver of health inequalities. Consequently, smoking cessation must be understood as a social justice issue. Almost a quarter of adults in the most deprived communities in Wales smoke, a figure that is four times higher than that for the least deprived areas. As we have already heard clearly today, that is not fair; it is a social justice issue.
No Government who are committed to social justice, whether they are in Cardiff Bay or Westminster, can ignore this problem. I am therefore very pleased that the UK Labour Government are leading the way internationally through the Tobacco and Vapes Act 2026. That landmark piece of legislation will see the UK deliver the world’s first smoke-free generation, ensuring that today’s children will be protected from the cycle of addiction and disadvantage that has plagued our communities for decades.
Another major achievement of the Act was to take major steps to combat the challenges of youth vaping and to protect future generations from the risks of nicotine addiction. I will concentrate mainly on vaping from now on, because although vaping is an important means of smoking cessation, I remain concerned about the number of people, especially children, who are vaping and consuming nicotine without ever having been smokers. Earlier this year, the Office for National Statistics confirmed that over a million people across England, Scotland and Wales are in that category, and the figure has doubled since 2021. Overall, the number of people using vapes and e-cigarettes daily or occasionally has quickly overtaken the number of people who smoke, and the number continues to rise, especially among young people, even while smoking rates decline.
Public health analysis from last year found that 5% of children between year 7 and year 11 reported vaping at least weekly, with the proportion for year 11s rising to 13%. Similar fieldwork undertaken by ASH Wales in 2023 found that 92% of secondary school-aged vapers were using products containing nicotine and that almost half of them could not go through the whole school day without vaping. Moreover, 55% of the vaping products being used were identified as being highly likely to be illegal.
These patterns are extremely concerning, and we need to go further and faster to bear down on the illegal and immoral parts of this industry that is preying on our young people. Last month, I was pleased to be able to host a roundtable here in Parliament to consider how the provisions of the Tobacco and Vapes Act 2026 can be further strengthened to bear down on those trends. Attendees noted that, as we have heard, there is a wide spectrum of vape shops, ranging from corner shops to specialist retailers. There is a considerable discrepancy between the two ends of the spectrum. Currently, customers should be able to expect clear and consistent retail standards, with a focus on smoking cessation at their heart. I ask the Minister to outline what steps she is taking to level up retail standards for vape shops so that customers know what to expect.
At that roundtable, we also discussed imported vape products, particularly the high-capacity “big puff” devices. They should be held to the same standard as vape products manufactured in the UK. Consequently, will the Minister say what conversations she has had with the Treasury to ensure that our UK Border Force and local trading standards teams are effectively resourced to perform effective spot-checks at the borders and in retail establishments? The Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency also needs to be sufficiently financed to provide effective safety assurances. Proposals by the Government to regulate the appearance or operation of physical shops will have limited effect if unsafe or non-compliant products can still enter the market through online sales, direct imports or other routes.
I could go on and on, but I dare not, because I am conscious of time. We need to get a grip on this problem and I look forward to the Minister answering my questions.
Danny Beales (Uxbridge and South Ruislip) (Lab)
It is an honour, Ms Vaz, to serve under your chairmanship.
Like colleagues, I thank the co-chairs of the all-party parliamentary group on smoking and health, the hon. Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) and my hon. Friend the Member for City of Durham (Mary Kelly Foy), for their excellent introductions to the debate. They superbly put across the points about the impact of smoking, and the importance of our ambition for a smoke-free generation and a smoke-free country.
Like many other Members, I approach this debate with my personal perspective of smoking and my experience of growing up in a smoking household. Most of my family have smoked at various points, some of them for quite a long time—my mother did for more than 40 years. Smoking was always present in my childhood and adolescence, so my rebellion was to not smoke. That was probably a good, rebellious side to have, compared with the other options available.
Based on my experience and what I saw around me, I was an anti-smoker from day one. I saw the power of addiction and how difficult it was for so many of my family members, including my mother, to quit smoking, despite their best efforts and despite knowing that it was the right thing to do and that it was harming them, those around them and even their children. Smoking is incredible in its power to keep people addicted.
My grandfather, who was a smoker for much of his life, passed away from lung cancer and my mum, who is fortunately still with us, has suffered from various forms of cancer throughout her life, potentially caused by smoking, among other issues. I am passionate that we must do all we can and continue to be a leader in smoking cessation.
We know the evidence; it is clear. We have had clear marketing campaigns. We have had the horrific images on the front of cigarette packets for some time, but people have almost become numb to them and turn away from them. The power of those things alone is not enough to get us to where we want to be. Personal responsibility arguments are often used by people with libertarian or far-right perspectives—Reform UK has been mentioned today—but we know that is not enough.
Throughout the historical crusade to end smoking, public health measures have proved the doubters wrong time and again. The ONS data shows that we have achieved the historic milestone of falling below 10% prevalence; for the first time, fewer than one in 10 people in the UK smokes. We have to recognise that, positively, for some time, this has largely been a cross-party mission. The right hon. Member for Richmond and Northallerton (Rishi Sunak), when he was Prime Minister, led the campaign and proposed ambitious legislation. But there is a risk we will see that cross-party consensus evaporate. Reform UK’s relationship with big tobacco has already been mentioned. Unfortunately, both that party and the Opposition have had free votes on this issue, and it has not been possible to get a consensus on the legislation.
I hope that changes, because we all know the difference it can make. Within 20 minutes of stopping smoking, blood pressure resumes to normal levels, and within eight hours, nicotine and carbon monoxide levels in the blood reduce by half and oxygen returns to normal. Within two to 12 weeks, circulation improves; in three to nine months, coughing and wheezing problems fade and lung function increases by 10%; in five years, the risk of having a heart attack falls to about half compared with a person who is still smoking; and in 10 years, the risk of lung cancer falls to half of that of a smoker and the risk of a heart attacks falls to the same level as someone who has never smoked. Those powerful figures show it is never too late to stop smoking and see the health benefits.
We have to sustain the progress we have made. The last 10% of people smoking are fundamentally harder and more expensive to reach than the first 10%. As has been said, there is also a social justice element to this campaign; it goes beyond finance and public health. ASH data shows that smoking has pushed just under half a million households into poverty, including 137,000 children. I have seen in my constituency that those in that last 10% often have complex lives; they may experience deprivation, mental health issues, and drug and alcohol issues alongside smoking. We need targeted and specific outreach to support those people to quit smoking.
I have met the fantastic women who run the Hillingdon stop smoking service. They have talked passionately about the work they do to provide incentives, support, nicotine products, vapes and other alternatives that are now on the market. However, that outreach is ever more expensive the closer we get to eliminating smoking in this country.
In the limited time I have left, let me make a pitch to the Minister. We should look to reinvest tobacco duty revenue directly into stop smoking services. I support the calls that have been made for a specific levy on the profits of tobacco companies that is targeted and reinvested into stop smoking services. The public health case and the economic case are clear, and I hope the moral case is clear. We have to do more. We have to become the first country in the world to become smoke-free.
Valerie Vaz (in the Chair)
I will begin calling the Front Benchers at 4 pm. It looks like the votes are coming at 4.30 pm, so we could well be finished before then.
Euan Stainbank (Falkirk) (Lab)
It is an honour to serve under your chairship, Ms Vaz. I commend the hon. Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) and my hon. Friend the Member for City of Durham (Mary Kelly Foy) for securing this timely and important debate about progress towards a smoke-free Britain. I also welcome the Minister to her place, and declare an interest as the chair of the responsible vaping APPG.
I made the daft decision at a slightly older age than the unique exposure that the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) had to pick up a cigarette at a party when I was 16. I have managed to progress to a point relatively early in life where I am no longer a smoker, but that was due to the availability of alternatives, not because I had the willpower to overcome the strong addiction to nicotine that quickly took hold after that juvenile mistake.
When we talk about ending smoking and addiction, we need to talk about how to enable effective off-ramps for those who are addicted to nicotine. It was great when I visited one of the specialist retailers on Falkirk high street, VPZ, that they had a carbon monoxide test, which checks how much carbon monoxide is in someone’s lungs. The level in mine has returned to relatively normal, but many of my constituents with preventable smoking illnesses face substantially worse outcomes because they have not been given that effective off-ramp in their quit journey. In this debate, I am thinking about those who are suffering from chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, lung cancer, heart failure and all other types of preventable illness. Diminishing that harm must continue to be our focus as we seek to sustain the progress that has enabled a significant fall in smoking rates.
There is no other legal product sold that does the same amount of damage as tobacco. I wholly support the Government’s Tobacco and Vapes Act 2026, which introduced a generational ban that will cut off those who turn 18 from January from ever being added to the 4.9 million smokers in our country. In the short time I have, I want to focus on the simple argument that, in seeking to achieve a smoke-free Britain, we should not prematurely regulate out of existence any of the tools that help combat tobacco smoking.
Occasionally, rhetoric on this topic has drawn an equivalence between vaping and smoking, because we are rightly concerned in this country about youth uptake of any nicotine products. Although I agree with that instinct, I must warn against the march towards an arbitrary equivalence of regulation between tobacco and vapes. We know from the data that the vast majority of vape use is among ex-smokers and current smokers, with 33.8% of current smokers and 20.7% of ex-smokers vaping daily or occasionally, compared with only 2.9% of those who have never smoked.
We also know from established public health data that vaping is 95% less harmful than smoking, yet—in no small part, I believe, due to the moralistic tone of the debate that emerged around vaping—around 90% of smokers still do not know that vaping is substantially less harmful for them. If we were to fully ban flavour or significantly restrict its availability as a result of the Government consultation on vaping flavours, which has closed, we may inadvertently limit the effectiveness of our most effective smoking cessation tool. ASH data indicates that 14% of ex-smoking adult vapers would return to smoking if flavours were restricted, and over 70% of vapers say that flavour variety helps them quit and, most crucially, sustain their efforts to quit. I would appreciate an update from the Minister on how the Government’s response to the consultation will retain the right balance by permitting flavours, as vaping is a quit aid.
I welcome the fact that the consultation is distinct from the question of packaging, display and appearance; far too much of the debate on the Tobacco and Vapes Bill focused on the appearance and names of vapes rather than the value of flavours to smokers who are seeking to quit. We have tacitly acknowledged that vapes are important in ensuring a smoke-free Britain; we can see the success of the “swap to stop” scheme. Overzealousness in curtailing the variety of products that are available to those seeking to access those services may undercut the sustainability and viability of that effort.
With my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne East and Wallsend (Mary Glindon), I sponsored an amendment to the Bill that would have introduced age-gating technology into vapes, which I think could be a helpful tool for the Minister. It would have practically addressed Members’ concerns about youth vaping while retaining the benefits for smoking cessation. As the technology is achieving more mass adoption, especially in the United States, I would be interested to hear how the Minister thinks it could be utilised under the powers available to her in the Act. We see the worst practices in shops that would not think twice about selling similarly age-gated products to under-age people, including alcohol and fireworks. On the display ban, I believe that restrictions on what can be displayed at the shop front could inadvertently harm specialist and bespoke retailers more than the shops we are attempting to tackle, so we need a full list of specialist retailers to make sure we support smoking cessation efforts.
The Minister’s predecessor put it very well: if you do not smoke, do not vape, but if you do smoke, switching to vaping is a far preferable choice. The regulation that is being considered should follow that principle.
Clive Jones (Wokingham) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Vaz. I thank the hon. Members for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) and for City of Durham (Mary Kelly Foy) for securing this debate.
Tackling cancer must be a national priority. Lung cancer is one of the deadliest forms of cancer and is often caused by smoking. It accounts for about 35,000 deaths every year—approximately one in five cancer fatalities—and causes suffering and heartbreak in communities across the country.
I know at first hand the impact that smoking can have, as my father was a very, very heavy smoker. He began smoking at around the age of 14. It was fashionable; everybody did it. Serving in the second world war, there was a plentiful supply of cigarettes. He could not give them up and continued smoking for the rest of his life—often 60-plus a day. It eventually killed him at the very early age of 63. That is why the ambition of a smoke-free Britain is so important to me.
For that reason, I welcomed that Tobacco and Vapes Act, which passed earlier this year. It introduces a progressive generational ban on the sale of tobacco products to anyone born after 1 January 2009, which means that future generations will never legally be able to buy cigarettes or other tobacco products. That is particularly important because, although overall smoking rates have fallen over the past 15 years, the proportion of children who have tried smoking has increased from 14% to 18% since 2023.
The Act is an important step forward in trying to stop young people taking up the habit of smoking, but legislation alone is not enough. Experts have rightly raised concerns about enforcement, and the decade of cuts to public health under the previous Government impeded smoking cessation services. The 2022 Khan review warned that, without further action, England would miss its smoke-free target by at least seven years, with some of the poorest areas not becoming smoke-free until 2044. That is why the Liberal Democrats have called for a return to the 2015 levels of public health spending and for renewed investment in smoking cessation services, funded in part by a levy on tobacco company profits.
Tobacco is a uniquely harmful product, and smoking remains the leading cause of preventable death in the country. It claims about 80,000 lives every year from lung cancer and cardiovascular disease. It is linked to at least 16 different cancers and countless other illnesses, and it kills up to two thirds of its long-term users. It is also the leading cause of lung cancer.
Too many patients still face unacceptable waits for diagnosis and treatment. More than 106,000 cancer patients waited longer than 62 days to begin treatment in 2025. Freedom of information requests revealed that most NHS trusts reported patients waiting more than six months for cancer treatment, with some waiting considerably longer. Such delays have serious consequences. Evidence suggests that every four-week delay to treatment can significantly reduce survival rates. For lung cancer patients, early diagnosis and rapid access to treatment can mean the difference between life and death.
Given the need to improve outcomes, I welcome the Government’s national cancer plan. The ambition to meet all cancer waiting time standards by 2029 is positive. That includes the target of all patients beginning treatment within 62 days of an urgent referral, for which the Liberal Democrats have been calling for some time.
I am particularly pleased that the plan includes dedicated specialist cancer nurses for patients, but that is a massive ask because of the huge shortage of specialist cancer nurses. The Liberal Democrats would recruit 3,000 additional cancer nurses, doubling the current workforce. Will the Government commit to doing that? In addition, the Liberal Democrats would introduce 200 fully staffed radiotherapy machines across the country, but particularly in areas of deprivation and areas that are currently poorly resourced.
These measures would help to tackle the inequalities that continue to drive poorer outcomes in areas with the highest rates of lung cancer and smoking-related disease. By bringing together prevention, early diagnosis, treatment and addiction support, we can reduce both smoking rates and the harm that smoking causes.
There is a strong economic case for action. Smoking costs society annually an estimated £44.8 billion through healthcare costs, lost productivity, social care pressures and smoking-related fires. Those costs far outweigh the £7.5 billion a year of revenue generated through tobacco taxation. If smokers spent their money elsewhere, it would support up to 135,000 full-time equivalent jobs and boost economic output by billions of pounds.
A smoke-free Britain should be an ambition shared across the House. Reducing smoking, preventing lung cancer and ensuring equal access to high-quality treatment are goals that should transcend party politics.
To finish, I have a couple of quick questions for the Minister. Can she provide an update on progress towards offering opt-out smoking cessation support as part of routine hospital care and explain what further support is being provided to help current smokers to quit? Can she also confirm that local authority funding for smoking cessation services will be protected throughout this Parliament and that the ringfence around the public health grant will remain in place?
Gregory Stafford (Farnham and Bordon) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Vaz. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) and the hon. Member for City of Durham (Mary Kelly Foy) on securing this debate. I thank my hon. Friend for his tireless campaigning on this issue over many years.
Smoking remains the single largest preventable cause of cancer, and the prize for tackling it is enormous: fewer deaths, shorter waiting lists and a healthier country. We on the Opposition Benches will support action that works and will hold the Government to account on the delivery of it. As has been mentioned, common ground has been found on this subject throughout the House. I am glad to put on record my party’s appreciation and my thanks to the Government for carrying a Conservative Bill over the line when what was for most of us a rather unexpected general election interrupted progress.
Let me start with that record. The ambition for England to be smoke-free by 2030 was set under a Conservative Government in 2019. The Khan review, commissioned by a Conservative Health Secretary, called for investment in a Smokefree 2030 programme, a rising age of sale, vaping as a substitute for smoking, and stop smoking support at the heart of the NHS. In 2023, we committed an extra £70 million a year to local stop smoking services, more than doubling annual spend to £138 million. Swap to Stop gave almost one in five smokers in England a vape starter kit alongside behavioural support. We put stop smoking advisers in maternity units and introduced incentives for pregnant smokers to stop, and smoking at time of delivery is now at an all-time low. We also began targeted lung cancer screening.
Before the election, as I said, we published the Tobacco and Vapes Bill. I served on the Bill Committee alongside the hon. Members for Falkirk (Euan Stainbank) and for City of Durham, so we remember the cross-party consensus that there was for most of that Bill. The outcome was that anyone born on or after 1 January 2009 will never be legally allowed to buy tobacco. We are proud of that and want it to work, but a law on the statute book does not cut smoking rates by itself. What happens next is what counts, and I want to raise five points with the Minister.
The first is about the target. The Office for National Statistics tells us that 9.8% of adults, or about 4.9 million people, smoked in 2025. That was down from 10.6% the year before. Of course that is welcome, but smoke-free, in definition, means below 5%. On this trajectory, unfortunately, the 2030 target will be missed. I do not say that to point-score, but candour matters. Canada has set a target of under 5% by 2035, and Belgium and the Netherlands a target of under 5% by 2040, with interim targets and goals for young people. If the Government accept the Office for National Statistics figures and that the 2030 target will be missed, they should say so, set a new date and publish an outline plan. Cancer Research UK and ASH both want a new road map and tobacco control plan. Will the Minister commit to one, and when?
Secondly, on support to quit, ASH has warned that hospitals stop smoking services are being squeezed as ICB budgets are reduced. The Government promised opt-out cessation support in routine hospital care. So where is it? The national cancer plan lists implementing the Act as a key action and promises to fund stop smoking services, but it says very little on the delivery. A target without a funded service is an aspiration, not a policy.
That support must also reach the people who need it most. In the Tobacco and Vapes Bill Committee, I noted that manual and routine workers are 2.6 times more likely to smoke than managers. ASH now points to social housing, the economically inactive, people with no qualifications and those with poor mental health. How will the Government ensure that these gains are shared?
Thirdly, on enforcement and proportionality, Ministers are bringing in a ban on free samples from 29 October; a marketing and sponsorship ban from June of next year; wider standardised packaging, flavour and design rules; licensing; planning permission requirements for vape shops; and extended smoke-free places. All of that regulation lands on trading standards and councils. In the Bill Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Dr Johnson) asked trading standards witnesses whether they would have the resources. I warned that online and cross-border sales are the hardest to police. A rule that is not enforced is not really a rule. So what extra resources will trading standards receive, and when?
Rules must also be proportionate. The Government have taken wide powers to extend smoke-free places. The amendment my hon. Friend tabled to the Bill to limit them to places with a provable significant risk to public health was unfortunately rejected. In Committee, I asked the then Minister for a firm commitment on outdoor hospitality; unfortunately, essentially saying that it might not be the right time is not a decent response. Pubs and restaurants are under all sorts of pressures. Will the Minister therefore confirm that they are not in scope in terms of their outside seating?
Fourthly, on vaping, we have always backed vaping as a route out of smoking for adults, as the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne East and Wallsend (Mary Glindon) said. In Committee, I said that what worries me most for our children is vapes. However, the Government can hold both positions at once, and the disposable vape ban, in force since June last year, was a step towards that. ASH suggests that disposable use has fallen significantly, which is encouraging. Yet, Ministers have said little about what they have found from that.
As the Government review planning rules and business rates for vape shops, protecting children must be foremost. For example, on flavours, I urge the Minister to look hard at restricting the names that appeal to children—we talked about unicorn milk and the like endlessly in Committee—before removing options that help adults quit. I would also ask the Minister to revisit the case made by my hon. Friend the Member for South Northamptonshire (Sarah Bool) for exempting mental health settings from the vape vending machines ban.
Finally, on lung health, respiratory disease is the third most common cause of death in the UK, yet there is no modern service framework for it. My hon. Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham tabled an amendment to the Health Bill requiring one within 18 months. Unfortunately, Government Ministers rejected it. Asthma + Lung UK has called for exactly that kind of mission for lung health. The Government have also committed to a full roll-out of lung cancer screening by 2030—a programme that the Conservative party started. Is it on track and is it funded?
I want to close by paying tribute to a constituent, Yolanda, a volunteer for Cancer Research UK in my community, who has given her time to raise awareness of these issues. She lost her husband, and I put on record my condolences and my thanks. It is people like her working across our constituencies who remind us why the delivery of this is so important and why it matters.
Will the Minister publish a new target and plan? Will she fund hospital stop smoking services and deliver opt-out support? Will she resource trading standards, rule out the hospitality element, report on the disposal vapes ban and reconsider a framework for respiratory disease? We all want this Act to succeed and I will support her in any way I can to deliver it.
The Minister for Public Health and Patient Safety (Dame Diana Johnson)
It is a pleasure to serve under you this afternoon, Ms Vaz. I congratulate the hon. Member for Harrow East (Bob Blackman) and my hon. Friend the Member for City of Durham (Mary Kelly Foy) on securing this important debate, and on their steadfast advocacy in support of creating a smoke-free generation. I am grateful to all hon. Members who have contributed today.
I note that the two hon. Members who secured this debate co-chair the APPG on smoking and health and are obviously a formidable duo. I am not surprised that they were able to secure this debate, which I understand was granted by the Chair and members of the Backbench Business Committee. They obviously made a very powerful case.
Hon. Members raised a number of questions this afternoon, which I will try to address in my remarks, but I would also be very pleased to attend a session of the APPG to discuss the issues further. It is really important that we carry on with the cross-party nature of this debate and the work that has gone on by previous Governments. I pay tribute to the work of the previous Government and previous Prime Minister in this particular area, ably assisted by the hon. Member for Harrow East.
The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) told us about the rather drastic action his grandfather took to ensure that he remained smoke-free throughout his life. My hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne East and Wallsend (Mary Glindon) spoke about the role of vapes in helping people quit smoking. Importantly, she also talked about the illicit products and traders, and the fact that organised crime is funded by those products.
My hon. Friend the Member for Newport West and Islwyn (Ruth Jones) talked about her professional experience as a physiotherapist and the challenges that are faced particularly in Wales. My hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Danny Beales) talked about growing up in a family of smokers; he is very anti-smoking. He set out really clearly the health benefits of giving up smoking and how quickly those benefits can materialise.
My hon. Friend the Member for Falkirk (Euan Stainbank) talked about vapes. He chairs the APPG for responsible vaping and also made the case for vapes in helping people cease smoking. Again, I would be very happy to attend and talk to the APPG if that would be helpful.
The hon. Member for Wokingham (Clive Jones), who speaks for the Liberal Democrats, made a very personal statement at the beginning of his speech about the role that smoking had played in his family, with his dad dying at a relatively young age. The Opposition spokesperson, the hon. Member for Farnham and Bordon (Gregory Stafford), set out the work of previous Governments and asked a series of questions, which I will try to address.
I think we are all agree that tobacco is a uniquely harmful product and smoking is the single most entirely preventable cause of ill health, disability and death in the UK. It is responsible for around 75,000 deaths each year. Smoking reduces life expectancy by an average of 10 years, and almost every minute of every day somebody is admitted to hospital because of smoking-related harm.
Smoking contributes to a range of serious long-term conditions, including stroke, heart disease, diabetes, dementia, asthma and complications during pregnancy. The cost of smoking is not just measured in lives lost and poor health. There are significant economic costs. Smoking is estimated to cost the NHS and social care system £3 billion annually, resources that could otherwise be used to fund millions more appointments, scans and operations.
In terms of health disparities, smoking remains one of the greatest drivers of health inequalities in this country, with the burden falling disproportionately on our most disadvantaged communities. The disparities are stark. For example, the number of women who smoke at the time of delivery varies drastically according to deprivation—from 12% in Havering, 8% in Kingston upon Hull, where my constituency is, compared with less than 1% in Richmond upon Thames. Those are not merely statistics; they represent real families, communities and children whose health and life chances are being diminished by tobacco addiction.
Turning to the smoke-free generation, it is a real privilege to have responsibility for implementing the landmark Tobacco and Vapes Act. As many Members will be aware, the Act will create a smoke-free generation by ending the sale of tobacco products to future generations across the UK. In practical terms, that means than anyone who has turned, or is turning, 17 this year will never legally be sold tobacco. Over the next 50 years, that will save tens of thousands of lives and could boost the economy by up to £48 billion pounds.
Since Royal Assent, the Department has made significant progress towards the implementation of the Tobacco and Vapes Act. We have laid enabling legislation in Parliament, engaged extensively with stakeholders across public health and the retail sector, and published detailed guidance. We are also in the process of developing a nationwide awareness campaign to inform the public. We are expecting that to be rolled out in November with a particular focus on areas with high smoking rates.
The hon. Member for Harrow East asked about what progress has been made on the manifesto pledge for opt-out smoking cessation interventions in all routine care. I want to address that, but first I will say that protecting future generations through our smoke-free generation must go hand in hand with helping current smokers to quit. Through the public health grant, we have ringfenced a record investment of £153 million each year for local stop-smoking services specifically, with funding targeted towards those areas with the highest smoking rates. As I said, the hon. Member for Harrow East and my hon. Friend the Member for City of Durham raised the question about services and opt-out. Those services are currently available in 99% of maternity services and 92% of inpatient services. On top of that, ICBs have access to funding for tobacco dependence treatment services in those particular settings.
Many comments were made about youth vaping, and we know that vapes can play an effective role in helping adult smokers to quit, as my hon. Friends the Members for Newcastle upon Tyne East and Wallsend and for Falkirk stated. However, young people, and adults who do not smoke, should never vape. That is because we know that they are not harm-free and the longer-term harms are still unknown.
We are taking firm action to protect future generations from the risk of nicotine addiction. That is important given that a million 11 to 17-year-olds have tried vaping this year. We have also banned single-use vapes, and a vaping product duty is now in force. From 29 October, we are introducing a ban on vape vending machines, banning free distribution and extending the age of sale to 18 for all nicotine and vaping products, including nicotine-free vapes.
The Tobacco and Vapes Act also introduces a comprehensive ban on the advertising and sponsorship of tobacco, vaping and nicotine products. We intend to bring that into force across the UK from 1 June 2027. My hon. Friend the Member for Falkirk asked how we will ensure that striving for a smoke-free generation does not mean banning key smoking cessation tools such as vapes. The measures consulted on have been carefully assessed to ensure the right balance between protecting children and ensuring that adult smokers can still access vapes to quit smoking.
In terms of upcoming policy changes, in May we concluded our consultation on extending smoke-free places to certain outdoor settings and introducing vape-free places. Our consultation on proposals to reduce the appeal of tobacco, vaping and nicotine products closed on 2 October. We are now carefully considering the responses as we develop effective and proportionate policies that continue to protect public health.
Turning to enforcement, to ensure that measures in the Tobacco and Vapes Act are effective, we are providing up to £30 million a year for enforcement agencies until 2028-29. That will support legitimate businesses and enable stronger enforcement against those who break the law. The Tobacco and Vapes Act also provides new powers for enforcers. New fixed penalty notices come into force on 29 October, supporting trading standards to crack down on retailers who break the rules. The Act also provides powers to introduce a licensing scheme for the retail sale of tobacco, vapes and nicotine products in England, Wales and Northern Ireland and to expand the retailer registration scheme in Scotland. To answer the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne East and Wallsend, we intend to consult on those issues next year.
Several hon. Members asked what comes next after the implementation of the smoke-free generation measures on 1 January and for a longer-term road map for tobacco control and the introduction of a “polluter pays” levy. We share the ambition to drive down smoking rates. Indeed, new figures published just last week show that smoking prevalence across the UK has fallen to 9.8%, which is the first time it has fallen below 10%. That is a significant milestone that demonstrates the progress we are making.
We must not mistake progress for completion, however. Around 4.9 million adults across the UK still smoke, and we remain determined to go further. Our immediate priority is delivering the Tobacco and Vapes Act successfully and ensuring that these landmark reforms achieve their full potential. The Act represents the most significant advance in tobacco control in a generation, and getting implementation right will deliver benefits for decades to come. I am very happy to look at all the issues and suggestions that have been made by hon. Members; perhaps we can discuss them at the APPG.
In supporting smokers to quit, protecting children from nicotine addiction, strengthening enforcement and creating a smoke-free generation, the Tobacco and Vapes Act represents one of the most significant public health reforms of our time. Future generations will look back on this moment as a defining milestone in public health. It is legislation that will save lives, reduce inequalities, improve health outcomes and create a healthier, fairer future for communities across the United Kingdom.
Bob Blackman
It is pleasure to follow the Minister, and I thank her for her comments. I also thank colleagues from across the House for their contributions to this vital debate.
I want to say a couple of things in response to what the Minister and colleagues have said. We have to be cautious about our position on vaping. We do not yet know the long-term impacts on health of vaping, but the first evidence is coming through that vaping does harm lungs. The delivery mechanism of the vape is key. We should be very cautious about that process. I agree with the principle that vaping is a means for smokers to give up, but people who do not smoke should not start vaping. That message has to go to young people in particular, who I think are really harmed by vaping.
Both of my parents died of cancer caused by smoking back in 1979. The advice that they were given as young people was that smoking was healthy. We have to remember that we have a duty to our next generation to ensure that they do not go down the route of believing that vaping is healthy. I agree completely that what we have done in the Tobacco and Vapes Act is give as many hooks as possible for the Public Health Minister to bring in measures.
Licensing is complex, and it is going to take some time to introduce it, but that does not mean that we should not move forward on advertising and other measures. We can decouple those as we go.
These debates have always been led from the Back Benches. We have forced Governments of all persuasions to make changes, and the Minister will know that we are a formidable force who will continue to hold her to account.
Valerie Vaz (in the Chair)
I thank Members: we got everyone in, and we did not have to suspend for the vote.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered progress towards a smokefree UK.
Written Correction
(1 day, 9 hours ago)
Written CorrectionsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Ministerial Correction
(1 day, 9 hours ago)
Written CorrectionsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Prime Minister
(1 day, 9 hours ago)
Written CorrectionsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Nigel Farage
MI5 boss Sir Ken McCallum yesterday revealed that there have been 50 arrests in the last year linked to Iran, and I have to say that this Government deserve praise. They deserve praise for proscribing the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps—a very important move. But every single week there are young, unidentified males from Iran coming into this country, some of whom pose a genuine security threat to our nation. Is it not time the Government recognised that what is going on in the English channel is a national security emergency?
The Prime Minister
Can I start just by recognising, with the charges that have been laid against the individual responsible for the murder of Ann Widdecombe, and indeed for also making threats against the hon. Member, that it has been a hard time for him and his family?
[Official Report, 14 October 2026; Vol. 791, c. 364.]
Written correction submitted by the Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Makerfield (Andy Burnham):
The Prime Minister
Can I start just by recognising, with the charges that have been laid against the individual accused of being responsible for the murder of Ann Widdecombe, and indeed for also making threats against the hon. Member, that it has been a hard time for him and his family?
Written Statements
(1 day, 9 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Broadcast Media Mergers
(1 day, 9 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 6 July 2026 Sky UK Ltd announced it had agreed terms to acquire ITV Media and Entertainment Holdings Ltd for a total consideration of up to £1.6 billion.
Under the Enterprise Act 2002, I may intervene if I have reasonable grounds to suspect that arrangements are in contemplation which, if carried into effect, will result in the creation of a relevant merger situation; and, I believe that one or more public interest considerations under the Act may be relevant to a consideration of the merger.
Following engagement with the parties and independent research, my Department has today written to the legal representatives of Sky and ITV on my behalf to inform them that I am minded to intervene on the following public interest grounds which are currently specified in the Act:
The need for free expression of opinion in news media.
The need for, to the extent that it is reasonable and practicable, a sufficient plurality of views in news media in each market for news media in the United Kingdom or a part of the United Kingdom.
The need, in relation to every different audience in the United Kingdom, or in a particular area or locality of the United Kingdom, for there to be a sufficient plurality of persons with control of the media enterprises, serving that audience.
Under section 42 of the Act, I may specify new or amended public interest considerations in an intervention notice for Ofcom to consider in relation to the merger. I have informed the parties that I am also minded to intervene on the following public interest ground which is not currently specified in the Act, but which I believe should be:
The need for the availability throughout the United Kingdom of a wide range of broadcasting, on-demand programmes or both, which —when either is, or as the case may be, both are, taken as a whole—is of high quality and calculated to appeal to a wide variety of tastes and interests.
The legislation already specifies a public interest consideration on the need for the availability, throughout the UK, of a wide range of broadcasting which is both of high quality and calculated to appeal to a wide variety of tastes and interests. This was drafted at a time where viewing was largely via broadcast linear channels; it does not currently cover the effect of a merger on streaming or on-demand programmes. Having considered the anticipated merger, I am of the view that there are reasonable grounds to believe that it might affect availability of a wide range of high-quality and varied programming on the on-demand platforms that are now widely used by UK audiences.
Consequently, if I decide to intervene on the basis of this new public interest consideration, I will bring forward legislation which amends section 58 of the Act to extend the application of the public interest consideration relating to the availability of a wide range of broadcasting to on-demand programmes.
The letters to the parties, and other relevant updates, will be published on gov.uk.
It is important to note that I have not taken a final decision on intervention at this stage. The “minded to” letter invites further representations in writing from the parties and gives them until 9 am on 20 October to respond.
If I decide to issue an intervention notice, the next stage would be for Ofcom to assess and report to me on the public interest considerations, and for the Competition and Markets Authority to assess and report to me on whether a relevant merger situation has been created, and any impact this may have on competition.
Following these reports, I would need to decide whether to refer the matter for a more detailed investigation by the CMA under section 45 of the Act.
I will update Parliament on my final decision at the earliest opportunity.
[HCWS385]
Arctic Policy Framework
(1 day, 9 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs (Uma Kumaran)
The Government are today publishing an update to the United Kingdom’s Arctic policy. This builds on the United Kingdom’s Arctic policy framework, “Looking North”. It is a response to recent developments in the region since the publication of “Looking North” in 2023 and sets out clear priorities to guide the United Kingdom’s engagement. This update reflects the Government commitment that the United Kingdom should continue to be an engaged, constructive and reliable neighbour, a partner in science and stewardship, and a steadfast ally in maintaining the stability and security on which the Arctic’s future—and our own—depends.
The update builds on strong foundations. It sets out how the United Kingdom is responding to the challenges facing the region, including the threat from Russia, climate and environmental change, the growing global interest in the region’s economic opportunities, and an increasing interconnectedness to wider global events. It also sets out how the United Kingdom, in partnership with others, will bring to bear its diplomatic engagement, science and research expertise, defence and deterrence capability, and economic interests in taking action to protect the people, climate and environment of the region, preserve security and stability, and promote shared prosperity, all of which are fundamental to both the region and the United Kingdom’s interests.
The United Kingdom will focus its engagement in the following five priority action areas:
Understanding and responding to a changing Arctic, to better inform policy by furthering our understanding of climate and environmental change, to address its causes and impacts, and draw on the United Kingdom’s polar research capabilities and expertise to drive research collaboration that recognises the value of modern science and traditional knowledge.
Enhancing security and stability, by stepping up our defence contribution to the High North, including through our NATO-first approach and investment in technology and infrastructure, in conjunction with partners, to maintain credible deterrence and warfighting readiness without seeking escalation or unduly securitising the region.
Supporting strong and effective governance, including by reaffirming our support for the Arctic Council, and championing rules-based international governance, consistent with established norms and fundamental principles of sovereignty and territorial integrity.
Building responsible trade and economic partnerships, where the United Kingdom has expertise and capabilities to offer, while managing risks to our security, safety and environment and ensuring responsible and transparent economic activity that benefits indigenous communities and other inhabitants of the Arctic.
Strengthening resilience, to deter threats to our security and prosperity by working collaboratively to enhance our understanding of the risks that we and our partners face from this rapidly changing region and appropriate mitigations.
These priorities reflect our diverse interests and relationships with the Arctic as a region. Partnership will be key to their delivery and the Government will draw on and seek to strengthen further its relationships with our seven Arctic state allies, indigenous partners and many non-Arctic states across Europe and the Indo-Pacific, as well as the European Union, with whom we share interests in the region. As the Arctic continues to change, so we are committed to ensuring it is a secure, sustainable and prosperous region.
[HCWS382]
Combined Authority Best Value
(1 day, 9 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Jim McMahon)
The Government are committed to a radical shift in where power and resources lie, empowering local leaders to drive growth and improve outcomes for their communities. But stronger local leadership must be matched by strong local institutions. As powers and investment increase, so too does the responsibility to demonstrate strong governance, sound financial management, transparent decision making and effective stewardship of public resources.
It is a matter of public record that, following the publication of the independent Tees Valley review in January 2024 and the mayor’s response, Ministers required further assurance of improvement. On 3 April 2025, the Department therefore issued Tees Valley combined authority with a non-statutory best value notice, which set expectations for improvement around governance, culture, partnerships and continuous improvement, including action to address recommendations from the 2024 independent review. That notice was due to be formally reviewed after 12 months.
The Department has engaged closely with the authority and its independent improvement and advisory board to scrutinise progress against the notice and the authority’s organisational improvement plan. I commend the commitment of officers and the engagement across the Cabinet and constituent authorities to support the authority’s improvement work. I recognise the complexity of unpicking historic governance and accounting issues, and that, as improvement work has progressed, further matters requiring attention have been identified. However, despite sustained improvement efforts, I am not yet assured that the authority has the capacity, capability or appropriate arrangements in place to respond with sufficient pace, transparency or consistency to the level of remaining risk.
In particular, I have material concerns about the authority’s long-term financial sustainability, given its high levels of debt, increasing borrowing and interest costs, and declining revenue reserves in recent years. I welcome the authority’s recent agreement of formal loan repayment arrangements with South Tees Development Corporation, including changes to strengthen Cabinet oversight. However, those steps do not in themselves provide assurance on the assumptions underpinning the repayment arrangements or the management of associated financial risks, on which I would like direct, independent assurance. More fundamentally, the effectiveness of these arrangements ultimately depends on strong leadership, governance and financial management, where broader concerns remain.
I note the external auditor’s indication in its 2024-25 audit update report that it is considering further exercise of its statutory powers in response to concerns about the authority’s governance and control environment and the delays in completing and signing off financial statements for 2023-24 and 2024-25.
Although governance and assurance improvements are in train, including through the development of the single assurance framework, I remain concerned about the scale of work outstanding to deliver and embed those improvements, and evidence their impact.
Having considered all available evidence to date, including from the authority, its independent advisory board and the external auditor, I consider there are signs of potential best value failure. 1 am therefore informing the House that the Secretary of State has today exercised powers under section 10 of the Local Government Act 1999 to appoint Laura Shoaf CBE as lead inspector, and, on Laura’s recommendation, will shortly appoint three assistant inspectors to carry out an inspection of the authority’s compliance with its best value duty.
The inspection will provide an evidence-based assessment of the authority’s compliance with its best value duty, focusing on, but not limited to: governance and decision making across the authority; use of resources and audit and accounting arrangements; capacity and capability at leadership level and across the organisation; the adequacy of the authority’s plans and capacity to deliver its organisational excellence strategy; and how these functions and arrangements are impacting organisational culture, partnerships and community engagement, and service delivery.
Given the scale and complexity of the authority’s commercial and regeneration activities, I would welcome expert assurance that appropriate arrangements are in place to oversee and mitigate the associated risks.
Our new model of Government rests on strong and capable strategic and local authorities and I am committed to taking the action necessary to secure this. The best value framework is an established and proportionate accountability backstop. It supports improvement where concerns arise and enables intervention where necessary, acting to ensure that strategic authorities have the right accountability, capacity and capability that protects residents and public money, reinforces public confidence and provides a secure foundation for devolution’s resilience.
Further devolution will be rolled out as quickly as possible, and additional powers and control, as set out in the Cabinet statement, will be available to Tees Valley combined authority as with all mayoral strategic authorities, benefiting the people of the Tees Valley. Further detail on the approach, including any phasing, will be set out in the delivery plan this autumn.
My Department will continue to engage with and support the authority throughout this process. I will update the House once the inspection has concluded.
[HCWS384]
Local Government Best Value: Slough and Bedford Borough Councils
(1 day, 9 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Jim McMahon)
The Government are committed to rewiring the relationship between central, local and regional government, returning power to people and places so that councils and communities can improve public services, drive growth and deliver better outcomes. Local institutions must be strong, with the right accountability, capacity and capability, and this Government are taking the action necessary to support the local government sector in building that strength and driving improvement.
Today, I am updating the House on the steps we are taking in partnership with Slough borough council and Bedford borough council to support their recovery and reform.
Slough borough council
Slough borough council has been in intervention since December 2021, and extended in November 2024, with directions due to end on 30 November 2026. On 5 March 2026 the then Minister of State for Local Government and Homelessness commissioned, due to ongoing concerns of the pace of improvement at the authority, an external review, led by Dame Mary Ney with support from Will Godfrey. The review was to assess Slough borough council’s improvement trajectory under intervention and identify what, if any, further support is required to drive immediate progress and to put the council on a long-term sustainable footing.
I would like to put on record my thanks to Dame Mary Ney and Will Godfrey. The report, which I am publishing today, makes a series of recommendations for the intervention. These include:
Embedding a sustainable senior leadership team to drive the council’s improvement and provide stability, to transition it to a more sustainable operating model.
A reset of the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government commissioner team to an oversight role; adoption of a single commissioner team with Department for Education.
A new, shared approach to political leadership and development, underpinned by the appointment of a political adviser.
A decision to move ahead with convergence of Slough Children First with the council.
Government support for Slough growth potential, to accelerate housing delivery and realise the opportunity of Heathrow expansion.
Subsequently the Slough commissioners have submitted their eighth report, outlining progress at the council. While progress has been made in some areas, it remains fragmented, and recovery remains slow, uneven and fragile. The council remains in a vulnerable financial position, with a forecast £20 million overspend, continued reliance on exceptional financial support and the need to closely review its debt repayment strategy to ensure it is managing down its high level of debt effectively. Governance remains underdeveloped, and serious weaknesses persist in key services, including children’s services, SEND and housing. Commissioners do not have confidence the council can sustain improvement without ongoing external support.
I have carefully considered the commissioners’ report, the external-led review and other relevant material. I am satisfied that Slough borough council is failing to comply with its best value duty. I am therefore minded to exercise powers of direction under section 15(5) and (6) of the Local Government Act 1999 to implement an intervention package that ensures the council’s compliance with its best value duty.
Proposed package
Having considered the external review recommendations and commissioners’ report, I believe that ongoing commissioner involvement is required to support the council into a place of sustainability and that stepping commissioners back too quickly would carry significant risk at this stage.
A key lesson we must learn from the last decade of intervention is that progress in one area is too often undermined by weakness in another and our intervention approach across the two Departments has been too fragmented to date. Children’s services will not be able to secure and sustain improvement while wider weaknesses in leadership, governance, and financial management persist across the organisation. I am therefore minded to refresh the commissioner team, working to shared DFE and MHCLG objectives, comprising of a lead commissioner, managing director commissioner, finance commissioner, and a SEND and children’s services commissioner—appointed jointly by DFE and MHCLG—alongside a political adviser to support the council ahead of, and following, the all-out elections in May 2027. It is my belief that this will provide the council with the continuity necessary to embed outstanding improvement activity, drive transformation and take forward the external review recommendations.
I envisage the appointment of commissioners until 30 November 2029, with a review of the progress of the intervention after 12 months.
Slough is a town of significant economic potential, and my Department will continue to work with commissioners and the council to harness that potential for the long-term benefit of its residents.
Bedford borough council
Best value inspection report
On 10 February 2026, the then Secretary of State commissioned a statutory inspection of Bedford borough council and its compliance with its best value duty. Paul Najsarek, Margaret Lee OBE and Tasnim Shawkat were appointed as inspectors and reported their findings to the Department in June 2026. I am publishing this report today, and extend my thanks to the inspectors for their diligent work and to the council and all participants for their co-operation.
The report identifies some strengths within the council, including within partnership working and in supporting the Universal project. It also notes the steps taken in response to external challenge, including an improvement plan and independent improvement and assurance panel, but concludes these are not yet sufficient to drive the urgent improvement required.
Overall, the report documents serious concerns across a number of areas:
On continuous improvement: the report notes that, despite extensive external support and challenge since 2023, the council has made limited progress in delivering the scale of transformation and change required. The inspectors “have no confidence that the necessary improvement will be secured without external intervention”.
On leadership: the report identifies challenges “in all parts of the organisation—politically and managerially”. Weak leadership and cross-party working has meant it has been unable to “confront its growing financial problems”.
On governance: the council’s governance arrangements lack the “clarity, grip or discipline needed to support timely and effective decision-making”. Inspectors assess they are not adequate for a council with a directly elected mayoral model operating without overall political control.
On culture: the report highlights a “negative culture” characterised by low trust, blame, defensiveness, silo working and weak accountability. Inspectors describe poor member-officer relationships, reports of bullying and misogynistic behaviour that had not been systematically addressed, low staff morale, and blurred boundaries between member and officer roles.
On use of resources: the report identifies “limited and insufficient evidence of action to improve” the council’s financial position, which remains unsustainable, with persistent overspends, significant shortfalls in its medium-term financial strategy, limited reserves and growing borrowing pressures. The council required exceptional financial support to set a balanced budget for 2025-26 and 2026-27.
Compliance with the best value duty
I have carefully considered the report and other relevant material, including the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy’s review of 2025, the progress made since the Local Government Association’s corporate peer challenge of 2023 and updates since the inspection concluded, and I am satisfied that Bedford borough council is failing to comply with its best value duty in relation to continuous improvement, governance, leadership, culture, and use of resources.
The council must now work collaboratively and at pace to address the recommendations received to date and deliver sustained improvement.
I consider that the council needs intensive support to achieve this. I am minded to exercise my powers under the Local Government Act 1999 to issue statutory directions to the council and nominate commissioners with expertise in political and corporate leadership, transformation, governance and finance, and some with powers to exercise specified functions of the council. My proposal to appoint commissioners is not taken lightly, and recognises that, as the inspectors say, the council has a “limited track record of delivering transformation and change, despite the extensive external support already available”.
The council would be directed to prepare and agree a comprehensive improvement and recovery plan to the satisfaction of the commissioners, bringing together the full range of activity required to ensure compliance with its best value duty. Progress against this plan must be demonstrable, with commissioners reporting to the Secretary of State on progress at six-monthly intervals. The intervention will also strengthen the council’s capacity to work effectively with partners on major strategic projects, including Universal, helping maximise the benefits they bring to the borough.
My clear expectation is that the council should continue to lead and deliver its own improvement wherever possible, with the appointed commissioners providing oversight, challenge and support and exercising their powers to secure improvement. The proposed intervention will be in place for three years but should there be sufficient evidence of progress, powers over functions will be handed back to the council.
Representations
I am now inviting representations from the council and any interested parties, including residents, on the inspection report and the proposed intervention package by 28 October 2026.
I will carefully consider all representations and any other evidence received, before deciding how to proceed.
Conclusion
I remain committed to supporting both councils to secure the sustained improvement needed and deliver better outcomes for local residents.
I will deposit in the House Library a copy of the documents referred to, which are being published on gov.uk today. I will update the House in due course.
[HCWS383]
5. Ports: National Policy Statement
(1 day, 9 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Keir Mather)
I laid the revised text of the national policy statement for ports before the House on 6 July. There having been no resolution to the contrary within the 21 sitting days prescribed by the Planning Act 2008, I am pleased to inform Parliament that I am today formally amending the NPSP under the provisions of section 6(9) of that Act. The NPSP applies to ports in England, and to reserved trust ports in Wales—currently, Milford Haven.
Ports are critical to the success of our economy. They have proved their ability to adapt to changing market conditions and to invest largely without recourse to public funds. The updated national policy statement will provide strong support for investment, responsive to customers’ requirements, contributing to national resilience, and in harmony with the environment.
[HCWS381]
House of Lords
Introduction: Baroness Mills of Greenwich
Introduction: Lord Sanders of Hallingdal
Arts and Cultural Sector: Employers’ National Insurance
(1 day, 9 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Vaizey of Didcot
To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the impact of increases to employer’s National Insurance on the arts and cultural sector.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (Baroness Mackenzie of Sherwood) (Lab)
I thank the noble Lord for the Question and pay tribute to his unbroken record as the longest-serving Arts Minister. I am sure I will never match it.
The 2024 Budget required difficult decisions to fix the public finances. Like other employers, cultural organisations were subject to a 1.2 percentage point increase in employers’ national insurance. To protect the smallest businesses and charities, many of which are cultural or creative organisations, the employment allowance more than doubled from £5,000 to £10,500. This means that 900,000 employers have no employer national insurance liability at all. In addition, earlier this year, we announced a historic £1.5 billion Arts Everywhere package, which is expected to reach 1,000 cultural organisations.
Lord Vaizey of Didcot (Con)
My Lords, I do not wish to make my exchange with the Minister too cosy, but I pay tribute to her and welcome her to her position. She has a distinguished record in the arts, not least from stewarding the Cultural Olympiad during the London Olympics.
Nevertheless, I was at a conference yesterday, which was timely, as somebody pointed out that their arts organisation had secured a £50,000 donation that was immediately wiped out by the increase in national insurance contributions. To take one sector—grass-roots music venues—the latest statistics show that one in five people have left that sector because of the impact of national insurance and business rates. This Government seem to give with one hand but take very seriously with the other.
Baroness Mackenzie of Sherwood (Lab)
I thank the noble Lord. As we know, there have been many pressures on cultural and creative organisations. The noble Lord, from his role as a trustee of the Tate, is better placed than I am to comment on the detail of some of those organisations. The impact for many is that they have not yet recovered the audience levels, and therefore incomes, that they enjoyed before Covid. That is probably the biggest threat for many organisations. We are very aware of the many pressures and, as I said, the historic £1.5 billion Arts Everywhere package is a first step in helping to support those organisations.
Baroness Keeley (Lab)
Can my noble friend the Minister tell me her assessment of the damage to the arts and cultural sector if a future Government were to cut the DCMS budget by £1 billion, as was suggested by the Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch last week? Take just the music industry: it creates £8 billion a year for the economy and supports 22,000 jobs.
Baroness Mackenzie of Sherwood (Lab)
I thank my noble friend for that question. Like many in the House, I was very shocked by that announcement and that threat against the arts, cultural and creative sectors, which I know many noble Lords in this House support with passion. They contribute to making the creative industries the fastest-growing of the top eight priority business sectors, with a total contribution to the economy of £144 billion last year. I am not going to list their many other benefits on this occasion. I suggest that the best remedy to ensure that the £1 billion cut to the DCMS never happens is to encourage all noble Lords to help Labour win the next election.
Baroness Bonham-Carter of Yarnbury (LD)
My Lords, I admire both the noble Lord, Lord Vaizey, and the noble Baroness, Lady Mackenzie, but I add my concern that the party of the noble Lord, Lord Vaizey, has decided to slash all this money for culture and arts. We welcome the Government’s commitment to extra funds for cultural infrastructure, but buildings need people to run them and artists to fill them to draw audiences. However, as we have heard, operating costs have increased significantly and they are struggling. Has the Minister considered something similar to the Irish basic income for artists? Indeed, the Scottish Government have announced plans to pilot an artist’s minimum wage.
Baroness Mackenzie of Sherwood (Lab)
I thank the noble Baroness for that excellent question. The Irish led the way in piloting the idea of an income for artists and there is now a pilot in Scotland. This is something I wish to follow with attention. It is obviously a proposal that is the source of active and enthusiastic lobbying from the arts sector, so I will be paying close attention to how it goes in Scotland.
The Earl of Clancarty (CB)
My Lords, looking further at costs, the Minister will be aware of the now serious crisis in domestic touring of performing arts companies as a result of greatly increased costs, with a catastrophic 64% decline in touring drama since 2019, according to the Arts Council. Will the department impress on the Treasury the importance of expanding tax relief, including theatre tax relief, to make those unavoidable costs of touring fully eligible? Domestic touring is so important for the health of the country.
Baroness Mackenzie of Sherwood (Lab)
As some noble Lords will know, I started my career in touring theatre and worked for many years at a theatre that received touring theatre, so I absolutely understand the issue and its seriousness. It is a subject of lobbying from the sector and of discussion with the Government, and I am unable to comment further on any issue that might or might not appear in the Budget.
Lord Grayling (Con)
My Lords, I declare an interest as a trustee of the National Portrait Gallery. The Minister will be well aware of the importance of philanthropic donations to major institutions. Will she then make representations to the Chancellor to stop government policies that end up with wealthy people who could otherwise support the arts choosing to leave the country?
Baroness Mackenzie of Sherwood (Lab)
I support and publicly pay tribute to all the philanthropists, both those in this country and those based internationally, who support our cultural institutions and arts. It is one of the most important areas of partnership for cultural institutions. A brilliant project that the government art collection announced is the ninth iteration of the Robson-Orr TenTen Awards—an impeccable partnership between philanthropists and the government art collection, co-created and co-inspired by both the philanthropists and the Government. I should pay tribute to the Conservative Government for introducing its ninth iteration, although we celebrate and applaud its achievements to date.
The Lord Bishop of Manchester
My Lords, Britain’s heritage in culture and arts is world-class, but that depends on young people coming forward and having the training, often at a very young age. What more can be done to support the specialist music and dance schools, including Chetham’s School in Manchester, which have been very badly hit by VAT on school fees? That often affects choristers in our cathedrals, and I declare an interest as Bishop of one of those cathedrals. How can we better support those schools so they can survive and thrive and play an important part in bringing forward the next generation of excellent musicians and dancers?
Baroness Mackenzie of Sherwood (Lab)
I thank the right reverend Prelate for the question. I also pay tribute to the brilliant work of Chetham’s, which is an outstanding school. It is unfortunately not possible to exempt a particular sector of private schools from VAT, but for all of us a priority is to ensure that the arts are back in the school curriculum to enable everyone to start along a talent pathway. Not everyone will get into a specialist school like Chetham’s, but everyone should have the opportunity in every postcode to develop their creative talent, and that is a big priority for the Government.
Lord Brennan of Canton (Lab)
My Lords, I want to make two suggestions that the Government might take up to improve matters. One is to extend the sort of tax relief given to film production to our recording studios. A number of us, including the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, and myself met with the Treasury Ministers earlier this year to discuss that. Will the Minister make representations to the Treasury in that regard? Secondly, something that would cost the Government nothing but that would work is to put the LIVE Trust levy on a statutory footing. Given that, on a voluntary basis, it is collecting less than half the money it could be collecting to support our grass-roots music venues, would she consider legislating in that regard when the Government bring forward their ticketing legislation?
Baroness Mackenzie of Sherwood (Lab)
I thank my noble friend for that. The history in the last 20 years of using tax credits for the benefit of the creative industries is something both sides of the House have greatly pursued, and that has been a very effective way of supporting different sectors within the creative industries. I am aware of the discussions my noble friend refers to. I am unable to comment at the moment on that, but I am happy to explore it further outside this House.
Welfare Expenditure
(1 day, 9 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Balfe
To ask His Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of the Office for Budget Responsibility’s forecast that welfare expenditure will reach £407 billion by 2030–31.
The Minister of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Baroness Sherlock) (Lab)
My Lords, the Budget on 28 October will set out the latest forecast on government spending, including social security. This Government are prioritising welfare reform, putting work and opportunity at the centre. Our system should support people to get into work and get on in work, while ensuring that those who cannot work get the support they need. We have already introduced significant reforms through the Universal Credit Act 2025 and invested in employment support, while the Timms review and the Milburn review are considering further changes to ensure that the system is sustainable and focused on helping people who can work get into employment.
Lord Balfe (Con)
I thank the Minister for her reply. This is not a problem of one party, but the fact of the matter is that over the last 15 years, welfare expenditure seems to have run completely out of control. It is now increasing at a rate that, frankly, is not affordable in the long run. Will the Government try to cut back on expenditure and find ways of getting people off benefits rather than piling more and more people on to benefits?
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
My Lords, the noble Lord and I agree on one thing, which is that we have a shared objective—that all those who can work, should work. The job of the state is to make that possible, to give them the support they need and to help them get into jobs, and that is exactly what we are doing. We are investing £2.5 billion in the youth guarantee and expanding the growth and skills levy. We have already rebalanced universal credit to make sure that the incentives are in the right place, so that people are moving into work and are better off in work. We are overhauling jobcentres so that they are places where you go to sign up for work. We are investing in personalised work programmes for those who have health and skills challenges. I absolutely agree with the noble Lord, and that is exactly what this Government are doing.
Lord Bird (CB)
It is wonderful to hear all the things the Government are doing once people have fallen into poverty, but what are they doing, and what is their thinking, about the prevention of poverty—turning the tap off? I do not see much indication of thinking in this Government or the last Government about turning the tap off and stopping people slipping into the need for social security.
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
My Lords, I know that this is something the noble Lord is passionate about. We have had many exchanges on this and I agree with him. I point him towards two examples of how this Government are taking that seriously. The first is our child poverty strategy, which is looking precisely at the full range of things that help stop people falling into poverty as well as lifting them out of it. Secondly, one of the reasons we prioritise young people in our welfare reform is precisely to get people right at the start of their adult life. We should not have 1 million young people who are not in employment, education or training. If they start their adult life like that, what hope is there to be able to keep them out of poverty throughout their life? That is why we have prioritised that and are investing so much money in making sure that they get the help they need. It is why we are making sure that the review coming forward from Alan Milburn will give us clear evidence for reform and clear recommendations. We can all get behind that, I hope.
Baroness Lister of Burtersett (Lab)
My Lords, given the threadbare nature of our social security system after years of Tory cuts and restrictions, it nevertheless has a crucial role in tackling child poverty and providing security for a wider population, thereby reducing pressure on services such as the NHS. Does my noble friend agree that we should now be looking at how to strengthen social security further, in addition to the improvements she has mentioned, rather than denigrating it as an easy target for more cuts in the false belief that current spending is, as the noble Lord said, out of control? It is not out of control.
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
My Lords, my noble friend makes an excellent point, which is that the welfare state has always been a safety net. To function as a safety net, it needs to do its job properly. There are always going to be people in our society who cannot work and need help, and the state should support them properly. That is why sometimes in the past, when Governments have simply tried to slash all benefits and hope that that would make a difference, it has not only left lots of people in poverty but ended up with much bigger costs to the state down the line. It also has not worked. If we look at what happened to the number of people who were out of work because of sickness and health issues under the last Government, it was rising at much higher rates than it is now. It does not do the job. Simply cutting just moves costs around. Our job is to get people into work and get them on in work, so that they can have a sustainable life which they can build on and look after their families.
Lord Palmer of Childs Hill (LD)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for her detailed reply and the information that she regularly sends us. But can she explain why it was reported today that a person on sickness benefits who has recovered from an operation and sought to come off sickness benefits is still waiting for a reassessment four years later? Despite being called for a telephone meeting, he was told that there was no set date for him to be reassessed. Despite what the Minister has said to the House, it is no surprise that welfare expenditure is at such a high level when someone cannot get reassessed. How common is that?
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
My Lords, obviously the noble Lord will understand that I cannot comment on an individual case. But I can assure him that the department is aware of cases and looks into them. There is no question that there had been backlogs on assessments building up for years. One of the problems we have is that the number of people applying for sickness and disability benefits has been going up steadily—at a very significant rate, as I said, under the last Government. We have begun to bend it under this one. The way we have to make a difference is by doing two things. One is to address the incentives at source. That is why we have rebalanced the universal credit rates to reduce the amount going to those on sickness and disability benefits compared with those who are not, to try to redirect people to make sure that they go into work. The second is to make sure that the system is fit for purpose. We know that PIP is not fit for purpose, the Timms review made that very clear, so when we get that report out, we will look at how the system is working and how we can put it right.
Baroness Stedman-Scott (Con)
My Lords, there is agreement among many in the House, but not all, that the welfare bill must be brought down. But when people who want to come off benefits are told, “No” or “Not yet”, how confident is the Minister that the Government will achieve this?
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
One thing I would point out is that although overall spending on social security in this Parliament is still going up—the noble Baroness is right—it is rising at half the rate that it was in the last Parliament. The previous Government tried all kinds of things. They created PIP in the first place, to replace the previous system. What happened? The numbers and the spend simply kept going up. We have to get the system doing the right thing in the first place. We have to get people working, work out what is getting in the way and address that at root cause. We are doing lots of things in the short term, which I have already described at great length, and I have written to the noble Lord, Lord Palmer, many times, I accept that, but the reason we asked Alan Milburn and Stephen Timms to do reports is because we have to review things at source. We are going to be doing that, and we will respond in the near future.
Baroness Watkins of Tavistock (CB)
There is a great emphasis at the moment on the fact that people who can work, should work. I want to remove “should”. The vast majority of people who are unemployed want to work. A survey reported in the Times today shows that young people would value the opportunity to have a paid year of public service voluntary work. Will the Government seriously think about that, across a range of public services, so that people can get into the system of work rather than have two or three years of unemployment?
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
The noble Baroness is absolutely right. We know that most young people want to work because our colleagues talk to them all the time. I am grateful to her for saying that. This is not a snowflake generation that does not want to work; of course they want to work. But they need a chance to get a start. We have already begun to do that through supported jobs and employer incentives. We have young people, often for the first time in their life, working for employers such as Boots and others—doing real jobs. Only this morning it was announced that there is a partnership between major hospitality employers, including Whitbread, McDonald’s and Nando’s, and UKHospitality. They ae going to create jobs and are committed to hiring 100,000 young people who are not in employment, education or training. Hospitality is a big employer of young people. Having these real jobs, whether work experience or actual jobs, is the way that we get young people into work, giving them the experience and the chance to get in there. Once they have done that, they can move onwards and upwards.
Captain of the Honourable Corps of Gentlemen-at-Arms and Chief Whip (Lord Kennedy of Southwark) (Lab Co-op)
It is the Conservatives’ turn, but could they please make their minds up?
Baroness Altmann (Non-Afl)
My Lords, we have heard a lot today—and it is important—about youth unemployment and getting the youth back into the workforce, but there is a serious problem at the other end of the scale with people in their 50s and into their 60s who face age discrimination, cannot get into work or are overlooked for training and are certainly not taken on in the recruitment process. Can the Government reassure the House about what they are doing to address the real problem for those people who do not have work and have to wait longer for their state pension?
Baroness Sherlock (Lab)
I am grateful to the noble Baroness for raising the important point about people who want to work but who may have lost a job towards the middle of their career, or later on, and are struggling to get back into it. We have a fantastic programme called Connect to Work, working with people who have faced barriers to getting back into work. Sometimes that help has to be about helping them to rethink what the next stage of life may look like, it may be about helping them to have the right skills to navigate changing recruitment processes—as we all know, it is not the way it was when we were setting out in life—or it may be about giving them additional skills or retraining to do something totally different. The key is a personalised conversation to understand their barriers and help them to get back into work. We cannot afford to write off young people, but we also certainly cannot afford to write off those who have years or decades of experience. The country cannot afford that.