House of Commons
Oral Answers to Questions
(1 day, 12 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, 12 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, 12 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, 12 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
Thursday 15th October 2026
(1 day, 12 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Highways (Financing) Bill 2026-27 View all Highways (Financing) Bill 2026-27 Debates 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, 12 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.