Westminster Hall

Thursday 22nd October 2026 Westminster Hall

Thursday 22 October 2026

[Gill Furniss in the Chair]

Digital Government

Thursday 22nd October 2026 Westminster Hall

Science and Technology Committee

Select Committee statement

13:30

[Gill Furniss (in the Chair)]

We begin with a Select Committee statement. Dame Chi Onwurah will speak on the publication of the third special report of the Science and Technology Committee, “Rewiring the state: Delivering digital government: Government response”, HC 651, for up to 10 minutes, during which no interventions may be taken. At the conclusion of the statement, Members will ask questions on the subject of the statement, and Dame Chi Onwurah will respond to those in turn. Questions should be brief, and Members may ask only one question.

[Dame Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central and West) (Lab)]

Thank you so much, Ms Furniss. I am really grateful to the Backbench Business Committee for allocating time for this statement on the Science and Technology Committee’s report entitled “Rewiring the state: Delivering digital government” and to discuss the Government response. I place on the record my thanks to the Committee Clerks and specialists who supported this complex inquiry, as well as to all those who gave evidence, in person or in writing.

Both the previous Government and the current one have spoken of their ambition to make the UK a truly digital state, transforming citizens’ experiences of the health service, the education and justice systems, and indeed all public services, increasing productivity and efficiency and reducing costs. I am a tech evangelist; I believe that technology should make the world work better for people, and my Committee welcomes and supports the Government’s ambitions, but our report raised serious concerns about how achievable they are.

In our report, we identified four building blocks for successful digital transformation. The first is money. Money always matters, but we found that inadequate data on digital spend prevents the Government from making informed decisions or holding those responsible to account. The second is people. Do we have the right people and skills to deliver digital transformation and cultural change to ensure that skills are valued and embedded in leadership roles? For example, how many permanent secretaries have the digital experience required? The third is information and data security. There are serious data hygiene failures across the public sector. Public bodies hold public data on trust; it needs to meet the highest standards. The fourth is delivery. We need a detailed and measurable plan to ensure the success of the digital transformation agenda.

We also identified four barriers to realising the benefits of digital transformation. The first is hype. Both tech companies and the Government are guilty of this. Tech companies hype their solutions, often without reference to the problems, and the Government talk up the impact, such as the supposed £45 billion annual productivity saving from digitalisation. Hype undermines the credibility of the Government’s arguments, confuses and demoralises civil servants, and encourages the belief that over-optimism, rather than achievement and honesty, will be rewarded.

The second barrier is legacy systems. Outdated, obsolete or unsupported IT infrastructure, systems, hardware or processes pose an unacceptable level of risk. Our report found that, without a plan to address legacy systems, the Government’s digital ambitions will struggle to be achieved.

The third barrier is vendor lock-in. If significant costs or reductions in functionality are associated with changing vendors, we have vendor lock-in, whereby vendors can hold the Government hostage, raise prices, require additional contracts or reduce performance. The public sector depends on a small number of large digital and technology providers—such as Palantir, Microsoft and Amazon Web Services—and the Government appear to be worryingly comfortable with that.

The fourth barrier is lack of technology sovereignty. While the over-reliance on a small number of foreign vendors exists, the Government cannot set out to deliver their own sovereign digital agenda for the United Kingdom or fully support a competitive UK tech ecosystem. The Government should set out a public sector definition of sovereignty.

Palantir is a case study in three of the four barriers. Palantir’s relationship with the NHS began during the covid-19 pandemic when it was paid a nominal £1 fee to provide what its chief executive Louis Mosley described to us as “aggregating data”. It is now hyped as being uniquely essential to the NHS’s mission to save lives. It is a clear example of growing vendor lock-in as well as an over-reliance on foreign tech giants. Our report called on the Government to commit to exercising the February 2027 break clause in the federated data platform contract.

I thank the Government for their response, which came from the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport, although I understand other Departments were involved, so it is a welcome example of cross-Government working. Some parts of it are excellent, particularly the commitment to develop a strategy within the Government Digital Service to end vendor lock-in. That is a real step forward, as is the commitment to strong central co-ordination to drive progress on fixing legacy systems across the public sector, which is what we recommended.

An action plan is promised, as well as a remediation plan, subject to security considerations. The Government also reveal that 36 tech company employees have had access to either the federated data or specific datasets assigned by NHS England when initially Palantir said that none of its employees had access to it. So there is more transparency.

Other parts of the response are less encouraging. Significantly, in response to our recommendation that GDS develop and publish a framework to evaluate the performance of digital spend, we are told that they cannot count spend by Department. So as we embark on a complete digital transformation, we do not know how much is being spent and on what. How can we ensure that Ministers make informed decisions and can be held to account? Every single Government Department might be buying the same cloud services from the same vendor, and we will not know or be able to assess our resilience or performance.

Despite repeated data breaches, the Government refuse to share which public bodies and Departments meet basic data hygiene practices. That is due to “security considerations”. So we cannot hold Government to account for bad data management because it might alert the Chinese—I fear they know our limitations better than we do. Rolling out AI-driven public services over bad data infrastructure is a recipe for disaster and will require strong, rigorous standards and implementation to address it.

On open source, the Government are inconsistent and contradictory. They agree it is an important tool against vendor lock-in, but reject our recommendation that public bodies prioritise open-source tools and technology over proprietary offerings, citing the “essential commercial accountability” offered by suppliers of proprietary software. So is open source a good or a bad thing? The Government did not even engage with our request to provide impact assessments relating to the US CLOUD Act 2018, under which US headquartered companies can in principle be compelled to provide the US Government with access to UK customers’ data held in their UK data centres. The Government accept the need to strengthen sovereign capability and they promise updates, but reject a cross-Government strategy on sovereignty or a definition. They confirm efforts to support UK start-ups and scale-ups through procurement.

Two further key issues: we learned for the first time that the digital inter-ministerial group has been replaced by an official-level bimonthly digital executive committee, which sounds like a significant downgrade, just as digital is moved from the centre of Government—the Cabinet Office—to DCMS. Yet there is no commitment to appointing a dedicated Cabinet-level Minister responsible for driving effective digital transformation across the public sector.

Yesterday in the Committee hearing with Ministers on the machinery of government changes, the diffuse nature of responsibilities was apparent. Ministers and officials spoke repeatedly about working together effectively, but it does not give confidence that digital transformation will be achieved when there is not one person accountable for it or able to impose digital standards.

Finally on Palantir, the Government state that if a decision is taken not to extend Palantir’s contract, then the contract includes measures to support transition and continuity of services. I have since had a letter from the Minister for Health Innovation emphasising the significant costs associated with moving to another vendor while denying that there is vendor lock-in. I am seeking further clarification.

The British people deserve a modern, flexible digital state designed to meet their needs, with public services that improve their lives. Trust is essential to achieving that and bad data hygiene, outdated systems, vendor lock-in, hyped solutions and lack of sovereign capability is a recipe for failure. Without clear leadership that can drive and deliver the scale of change needed, we remain very concerned that there will be no successful digital rewiring of the state.

[Gill Furniss (in the Chair)]

I remind Members that they should bob if they wish to be called to ask a question, and that questions must be succinct.

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

I thank the Chair of the Select Committee, and the Committee itself for all its hard work. Advanced technology is what the Government are tasked with doing. Moving forward with modern technology is the way forward; however, I have two quick comments.

First, on the relationship between Government and business, it is important that businesses are able to keep up with the Government’s technological advances. That is the same for individuals. I am not tech savvy, and nor are some of my constituents. The Government’s way of doing business could limit their interaction with Government and their ability to take part. The hon. Lady also wisely referred to data protection. Many of us are suspicious of where our data ends up.

I have made three points there. You were very clear, Ms Furniss, about being allowed one question; I hope you will forgive me for my three ideas around the one point.

[Dame Chi Onwurah]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his questions, which go to the heart of the matter: the relationship between the public sector and business, and that between the public sector and the people it is meant to serve.

On business, the public sector should be able to call on the support of businesses as they themselves adopt digital products and services. It should be able to include many different businesses, from Northern Ireland to the north-east of England and across the country, rather than being reliant on a small number of often monopolistic providers. That is a point that we make very strongly in our report. It is important that the interface between the Government and business be open and competitive and not be monopolised. That is one of the things we think that the Government’s response to our report, in terms of looking to ensure the end of vendor lock-in, should help to promote.

On the interface with the public, the hon. Gentleman is absolutely right: the public should not need to be digital experts or super-knowledgeable on AI. The responsibility falls within Government to ensure that people’s data is safe and secure and that the public can trust the Government in handling that data, and to ensure that we have the best digital infrastructure, and transparent providers and suppliers as well.

[Anneliese Dodds (Oxford East) (Lab/Co-op)]

I very much appreciated this excellent report from the Select Committee. Does my hon. Friend feel that we can learn lessons from other European nations? I understand that the French Government have eschewed Palantir for their intelligence services, at least partly because of concerns about digital sovereignty. Does she agree that the UK Government should be working with our European allies on these questions of sovereignty?

[Dame Chi Onwurah]

I thank my right hon. Friend for her question and the expertise she brings to this debate, particularly with regard to working with our European allies. I very much agree that we should be working with our European allies on this matter.

As I have set out, there are concerns about Palantir, specifically with regard to vendor lock-in, hype and sovereign capability, but that underlines a wider desire for effective competition in the supply of technology. That is competition in terms of the companies and organisations but also the countries that offer the technology; we do not want to be dependent on one country. Europe should develop its own capacity, with companies that can deliver world-leading, excellent services. This should be a joint endeavour and ambition, and I was very pleased to meet with the French ambassador yesterday to discuss areas of shared ambition and concern when it comes to technology and its delivery and roll-out.

Public trust is dependent on an understanding that the Government share the values of the public, and the public services do as well. Having a European technology offering in open competition with other countries and other offerings is a worthwhile ambition.

13:46

Sitting suspended.

Backbench Business

Thursday 22nd October 2026 Westminster Hall

Equitable Life Policyholders: Compensation

Thursday 22nd October 2026 Westminster Hall

13:50

[Fabian Hamilton (Leeds North East) (Lab)]

I beg to move, 

That this House has considered the matter of compensation for Equitable Life policyholders. 

It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Furniss. I thank hon. and right hon. Members for attending this debate. Before I begin, I hope you will allow me to convey the apologies of a long-standing supporter of justice for Equitable Life policyholders, the right hon. Member for Goole and Pocklington (David Davis). He is sadly unable to join us this afternoon, but he has asked me to say that he has several constituents, as we all do, who remain without full redress following the collapse of Equitable Life. He asked me to mention those victims of the scandal in my speech today.

[Sir Desmond Swayne (New Forest West) (Con)]

On the issue of stalwart supporters, the hon. Member for Leeds North East (Fabian Hamilton) has been a magnificent supporter. I have come along to these debates for several years, and what I am looking for is at least some prospect of a result, because we have done this year in, year out. I have affected constituents, and I still support them, but what we need from the Minister is at least some sign that we are not flogging a dead horse.

[Fabian Hamilton]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman—and, dare I say, my right hon. Friend. We have known each other for many, many years, and he has also been a stalwart supporter. If he and the Minister have enough patience and are able to listen to what I have to say, they will hear me offer certain ideas that I hope will be pursued, because it is about time this issue was wrapped up for good.

I am grateful to all those who have continued to campaign for justice for the victims of Equitable Life and the scandal that followed, including the Equitable Members Action Group, whose work has helped to keep this issue before parliamentarians, as the right hon. Member just pointed out.

Of course, this debate is about more than just money; it is about fairness, accountability and the relationship between the state and the people it is supposed to represent and protect. It is about whether people who worked hard, saved responsibly for their retirement and trusted the regulatory safeguards established by Parliament should be left to bear the consequences of acknowledged Government and regulatory failure.

My central argument is therefore straightforward: the state has accepted responsibility for serious regulatory maladministration that caused policyholders substantial financial losses, yet the majority of those policyholders received only a fraction of the compensation for their losses. That injustice remains unresolved, and I believe the Government should now take practical steps to put it right.

[Sir Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for bringing forward this debate. Does he agree that one of the fundamental issues is who regulates the regulators? When the regulators failed in this case, ultimately the ombudsman tried to regulate the regulators, but the regulators were too stubborn to accept the ombudsman’s recommendations. So who is going to regulate the regulators?

[Fabian Hamilton]

I think that is above my pay grade. The fact is that we all need to be vigilant to ensure that the regulators are properly regulated. I imagine that it is up to us as parliamentarians to make sure that those who are charged with regulating—or with regulating the regulators—do their job properly and prevent this kind of injustice from ever happening again. But the fact is that it has happened, and many people have suffered.

Equitable Life is one of the biggest scandals in the history of UK financial services, with more than 1 million people losing a significant proportion of their hard-earned retirement savings. Those people had done what successive Governments encouraged them to do: they worked hard, saved and made provision for their later years, rather than relying entirely upon the state. They trusted that the regulatory system established by Parliament—I hope this addresses the hon. Gentleman’s point—would provide appropriate oversight and protect the public from serious failures in the financial services sector. However, they were let down by Government Departments and regulators that failed to do their job to an acceptable standard.

Following a four-year inquiry, the parliamentary ombudsman found that policyholders’ losses were directly attributable to a decade of serious and serial regulatory maladministration. The ombudsman made 10 determinations of maladministration and five of injustice, and concluded that the serial maladministration had resulted in the true financial position of Equitable Life being concealed and misrepresented. The findings were exceptionally serious. The ombudsman stated that

“the prudential regulation of the Society…failed comprehensively”

and catastrophically, but that, crucially, it was not a failure of the regulatory system itself. It was

“a failure properly to implement in the particular case of the Society the system of regulation that Parliament had enacted.”

The ombudsman also made it clear that no other party could be said to be at fault, because the regulators, acting with the advice and assistance of the Government Actuary’s Department, had “acted with maladministration”. Those were not merely the complaints of disappointed investors; they were the formal findings by our independent parliamentary watchdog after a forensic and lengthy investigation. The ombudsman recommended that

“the Government should establish and fund a compensation scheme…to put those people who have suffered a relative loss back into the position that they would have been in had maladministration not occurred.”

In 2010, the Government accepted the ombudsman’s findings in full. They acknowledged losses of £4.1 billion, yet only £1.5 billion was actually allocated to compensation. That is the fundamental unfairness that the victims of this scandal want to put right.

Of the policyholders affected—forgive me for all the statistics, but they are relevant—37,000 with-profits annuitants are receiving full compensation through annual payments for life: so far, so good. However, approximately 895,000 other policyholders received a one-off payment amounting to just 22.4% of their acknowledged losses, barely one fifth of the compensation needed to address the losses that the Government accepted had resulted from maladministration. According to figures supplied by EMAG, those policyholders are still owed £2.6 billion before any consideration of interest. I ask the Minister to reflect on what that means in human terms. For many people, retirement savings represent decades of sacrifice. They are the savings that are put aside instead of taking holidays, improving homes or spending more freely on themselves and their children during their working life.

[Dr Sam Rushworth (Bishop Auckland) (Lab)]

I thank my hon. Friend for the excellent job he is doing of speaking on behalf of our constituents. A constituent of mine, who wishes to remain anonymous, told me that he would today be receiving £20,000 a year had he invested his money elsewhere. He invested it where he did only because he believed the state was saying that it was safe to do so. I thank my hon. Friend for fighting on behalf of those people. I hope the Government will listen carefully to the recommendations.

[Fabian Hamilton]

I thank my hon. Friend, because what happened with Equitable Life meant the difference between a comfortable retirement and a struggling retirement, as his constituent, and constituents of every other Member in this room, will know full well.

The moneys from investing in Equitable Life policies were intended to provide security in old age—to pay household bills, to fund care and to reduce dependence on family members and the taxpayer—but the financial losses that people suffered in very many cases, as my hon. Friend points out, fundamentally changed their retirement. It has meant struggling with everyday expenses, it has prevented planned support for children and grandchildren, and it has meant facing later life with far less independence than anticipated. For some, it has led to the loss of the family home and to depression, stress and anxiety—there are plenty of examples of that. Of course, many feel intense guilt for having invested their family savings with the most respected, the longest-standing and, supposedly, the safest pension company at the time only to see it fall apart and dissolve.

The Government of the day argued that the £1.5 billion allocated for compensation was fair to both policyholders and taxpayers. Of course, public money must always be spent responsibly and the interests of taxpayers must always be considered. However, I think most people would agree that redress of just 22% of someone’s acknowledged losses is not fair—far from it—particularly when the state has accepted responsibility for losses caused by its own failures. I expect most people would think there is an undeniably compelling case to provide full redress.

[Martin Rhodes (Glasgow North) (Lab)]

A constituent of mine, who is now 76, changed jobs around the time of the collapse and was able to move his pension into a local authority pension scheme, although the transfer value took a 26% hit. Does my hon. Friend agree with my constituent that there must be greater transparency on this issue and that we must have meaningful reform of financial regulation, so that the experience of my constituent and of so many others is not repeated?

[Fabian Hamilton]

I certainly agree with my hon. Friend, and I will elaborate on that in a few moments.

[Peter Swallow (Bracknell) (Lab)]

As my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North (Martin Rhodes) pointed out, there are many issues connected with this scandal that have affected people’s trust in pensions. The Minister will know that I have also been a very vocal champion of those affected by the lack of indexation for pre-1997 pensions.

Does my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds North East (Fabian Hamilton) share my concern that the fundamental risk is that individuals will choose not to invest in pensions, having lost faith that, if something goes wrong, it will be put right? Ultimately, that will cost the taxpayer more, as people will not make the sound choice we want them to make of saving for their retirement.

[Fabian Hamilton]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and I certainly agree that at the heart of this matter is the issue of trust. As people throughout society lose trust in the institutions of government and the state, we will find increasing chaos and instability. Stability comes from trusting the institutions to deliver, and that trust is a two-way process. I thank him for his intervention.

The principle matters, not just to Equitable Life policyholders but, as we have just been saying, to wider public confidence in Government and the regulatory institutions upon which we all rely, as we have heard.

Aside from looking at full redress, I urge the Government to consider another issue. EMAG has calculated that, as of 31 May 2025, approximately £171 million of money already allocated for compensation had been held back by the Treasury rather than being paid to policyholders. This is not new money; it is money that had already been allocated. This situation deserves serious attention. It must surely be right that at least the value of all the money actually allocated for compensation as far back as 2010—16 years ago—should reach those affected.

It is important to understand the figures and what policyholders fear is the Treasury’s plan. Of the £1.5 billion allocated in 2010, £625 million was assigned to compensate with-profits annuitants; £100 million was retained as a contingency against the possibility that those annuitants would live longer than expected; and £775 million was allocated to the remaining eligible policyholders. Importantly, the £625 million allocated to annuitants was a discounted figure, reflecting the value at the time of future payments. The forecast cash cost of those annual payments was £836 million through to 2050, which is still a long way ahead of us. The forecast total cash spend of the compensation scheme as a whole was £1.7 billion—I hope everybody is following these figures.

According to the figures compiled by EMAG, actual payments to with-profits annuitants were around £599 million by 30 May 2025—just over a year ago—compared with forecast expenditure of approximately £646 million. That represents a difference of £47 million. And of the £775 million allocated to other policyholders, approximately £751 million had been paid out, leaving £24 million unspent. Together with the £100 million contingency, which EMAG argues is no longer required for its stated purpose, the total underspend as of May 2025 was said to be approximately £171 million. I will make sure the Minister gets those figures later; of course, they will all be in Hansard.

I recognise that the Minister may wish to examine or even dispute those figures and the assumptions behind them, but I think we can agree that it is in everybody’s interests that there is absolute clarity around this. I hope that the Government will provide that clarity. If funds have been allocated but are not needed to meet the liabilities for which they are intended, they should be used to compensate people who have still not received their full redress. Those people are already known and their losses have been calculated. There is therefore a strong case that additional payments could be administered without much cost and complexity. Releasing those funds would not address the issue of the full outstanding debt still owed, but it would be a positive step forward in this long-running saga.

There is a group of people whose position deserves particular attention and for whom an underspend could be used: around 10,000 with-profits annuitants were excluded from the compensation scheme because they bought their annuities before September 1992. When the Equitable Life (Payments) Bill came before Parliament in 2010 and 2011, I tabled an amendment to bring those 10,000 pre-1992 with-profits annuitants into the scheme, but it was sadly lost.

The argument for excluding those annuitants was that they could not have known about the true parlous state of Equitable Life at the time, but that does not take away the financial losses that they too suffered. They were affected by the same underlying regulatory maladministration and the near collapse of the society. They have seen their annuity payments drastically reduced just as other annuitants have. The ombudsman’s findings and recommendations did not distinguish between those who had taken out annuities before and after September 1992; that distinction was a construct of the Treasury, not the ombudsman or the society.

Those annuitants are, of course, among the oldest and most vulnerable victims of the scandal. Many will now be at a very advanced age, and many more have sadly died already. Every year that passes reduces the opportunity for them to receive the redress that they have long sought. Justice delayed is justice denied, but it has a particularly cruel consequence when the people waiting for it may not even live to see it delivered.

The Government should therefore examine how the underspend could be used to bring those annuitants into the scheme. EMAG has suggested that payments could be distributed in proportion to their current annual annuity payments, avoiding the need for individual actuarial calculations. The ex gratia payments made to them in 2013 following representations by MPs, including me, and EMAG could be offset against any additional payments, because they will be recorded. I urge the Minister to look closely at what can be done for the surviving pre-1992 annuitants—there are not that many of them.

An important core principle is at stake here. The Government, on behalf of the Crown in Parliament, have accepted the ombudsman’s findings and acknowledged £4.1 billion in losses attributable to maladministration. They have also calculated the specific losses suffered by individual policyholders. When the state accepts responsibility for a mistake and identifies the financial harm caused, it should be prepared to provide proper redress. The Government should not be exempt from the principles of accountability and fairness they expect others to observe.

Fuller compensation would also recognise the importance of the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman to our unwritten constitutional system. Independent investigations and formal findings of maladministration must surely mean something. If those findings are accepted but the recommended redress is not delivered, public confidence in the system risks being further weakened, as has already been said.

I would also suggest that further compensation would not be money spent to no positive effect—quite the opposite, in fact. Additional compensation would help people to meet the costs of care and everyday living, support their families and contribute to local businesses and communities, and I have absolutely no doubt that a significant part would return to the Exchequer through taxation, so it is not all losses. More importantly, it would give people back some of the financial security that was taken from them through failures for which the Government have accepted responsibility. I will conclude by asking the Minister to address four specific questions. I apologise for the lengthy nature of my introductory remarks, but those points had to be made.

First, does the Minister believe that, in cases where the state has accepted responsibility for a failure leading to financial loss for individuals, and that loss has been calculated by it, the default position should be to provide full redress?

Secondly, can the Minister confirm that total cash expenditure on with-profit annuitants was forecast to be £836 million, that that figure was discounted to arrive at the £625 million allocation for those annuitants, and that actual payments to date are below forecast?

Thirdly, I will be grateful if the Government will confirm whether the £100 million contingency fund remains necessary to cover the risk that with-profits annuitants live longer than expected. If that contingency is no longer required for its stated purpose, will the Minister commit to considering its use for further compensation?

Finally, will the Minister agree to carefully examine the possibility of including the surviving pre-September 1992 annuitants who were excluded from the compensation scheme? The victims of this scandal have waited long enough. That is why there are so many colleagues in the room today. The victims did not create the regulatory failures that damaged their retirement savings. They followed the advice to save responsibly, trusted the system established by Parliament and were let down by the institutions charged with protecting them.

The Government have acknowledged the wrongdoing and losses and established a compensation scheme, but that scheme left the overwhelming majority of affected policyholders with only a small proportion of what they lost. Clearly, we cannot undo what has happened, but we can decide whether to leave this long-standing injustice unresolved or to take practical steps towards putting it properly right.

The Government should review the unspent compensation funds, reconsider the exclusion of the pre-1992 annuitants and set out a path towards full and fair redress. Those who lost their savings deserve more than just our sympathy. They deserve fairness and justice now through action by the Government, not more empty words.

[Gill Furniss (in the Chair)]

I remind Members that they should bob if they wish to be called.

14:45

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

It is a real pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Furniss. A big thank you to the hon. Member for Leeds North East (Fabian Hamilton) for setting the scene incredibly well, as he always does in subject matters that he brings to Westminster Hall and the Chamber. He has been very much at the fore in leading the campaign for this. He clearly set out the injustice suffered by Equitable Life policyholders and made a compelling case for proper compensation. I do not intend to repeat everything that the hon. Gentleman said, but the core argument underlying this unresolved issue is profoundly important.

When the state accepts responsibility for a mistake, and acknowledges the financial losses flowing from it, the state should make good in full. I fully recognise that, as was the case in 2010, the state of the public finances is not as we would wish, and the competing demands on the Government are legion. But there are some principles that we should uphold at all cost. I hope that the Government will set out a path to ensure proper justice and fairness for those people affected, as they have rightly done in other important cases.

I am always pleased to see the Minister in his place, and I hope that he can give us the answers and reassurance that we seek on behalf of our constituents. I will focus on one specific issue that I believe requires immediate attention and answers from the Minister: the apparent underspend in the existing compensation scheme and whether funds originally set aside to compensate victims are being retained when they could have been used to provide the redress.

At the heart of this is a simple question. If the Government have acknowledged that people suffered losses because of serious regulatory maladministration, and if money was allocated to compensate those people but it will not be spent for a particular cohort or purpose, should that money return to the Treasury or should it go to the people who were wronged? I suggest the latter. This is not an abstract accounting question; it is one of fairness and public accountability.

I will start with the figures: in 2010, the Government allocated £1.5 billion to compensate victims of the Equitable Life scandal. That allocation was divided into three principal elements: £625 million for the with-profits annuitants via annual payments for life; £100 million held by the Treasury as a contingency in case those annuitants lived longer than expected; and £775 million for other policyholders. The £625 million allocation for the with-profits annuitants was not the total amount of cash expected to be paid over the lifetime of the scheme, it was a discounted valuation of future payments. EMAG has established that the forecast cash cost of those payments was £836 million, extending to 2050.

The distinction clearly matters, because Government must be transparent about what was committed when, what the forecast spend was and what is now expected to be required. We always thank the Library for the information it gives us, and its briefing on this says:

“The scheme was set up in 2010 to make payments to eligible policyholders who had suffered a ‘relative loss’ (meaning the policyholder would receive less under the Equitable Life policy than they would have if they had invested with a different company).”

In his intervention, the hon. Member for Bishop Auckland (Dr Rushworth) referred to the fact that people saw Equitable Life and said, “This is the one to invest your money in”. But that did not work out, and it is clear that that has been the issue right down the line.

The EMAG figures also state that approximately £171 million of compensation funding was expected to be unspent as of 31 May 2025. There are three clear elements to that figure. First, approximately £47 million is from the lower-than-forecast annual payments to the with-profits annuitants. Secondly, a £100 million contingency was held back in case those annuitants lived longer than expected; the fact that annual payments to annuitants are significantly below forecast strongly suggests that that contingency is no longer needed. Thirdly, approximately £24 million of the £775 million allocated for other policyholders was unspent—for what reasons, it is unclear. Answers are needed, and I would like to see answers on that unspent figure if possible.

I appreciate that the Minister may wish to distinguish between money that has not yet been spent, money reserved for future liabilities and money that can genuinely be released. That is a legitimate distinction—I understand that—but it makes the need for transparent accounting all the more important. I am sure that the Minister will give us the answers we are seeking. The Government must explain to those affected precisely how much was forecast to be spent, how much has actually been spent and what liabilities are thought to remain outstanding. I must put this on the record on behalf of my constituents: victims of this scandal are concerned that, as well as their having to bear a cut of their acknowledged losses of 78%, the Treasury may be trying to pocket, through clever accounting tricks, more than 10% of the limited compensation that was allocated. I believe that that is a question that must be asked, and the Minister has to answer it on the record.

Can the Minister confirm that the £625 million allocation for the with-profits annuitants was calculated on a discounted basis? Can he also confirm that at the outset of the compensation scheme, cash payments to that cohort were forecast to total some £836 million, so the total cash spend under the scheme was forecast to be around £1.7 billion? If those figures are correct—I understand that they are based on Government-published documents, ministerial correspondence and freedom of information requests that are on record, so the Government have to acknowledge that they are—I ask the Minister for an explanation as to why those funds cannot be redirected towards further compensation right now, because they should be. If they are not correct, we need to understand how and why, although I suspect that as Government figures, they are correct.

The victims of maladministration deserve to know whether the Government are holding on to money that could be put to the use that Parliament intended when legislating for the Equitable Life payment scheme. If the Government dispute the figures, I ask that they publish a detailed breakdown and analysis explaining the difference, which will give us all a chance to come back on that. I will conclude on this point, as I am conscious that others want to speak. If the £100 million contingency remains necessary to cover longevity risk, let us see the evidence. If money can be released, I ask the Minister to set out a plan for doing so. I hope that will be the answer to our queries today. If it is, it would be a massive step forward. I thank the Government for recognising that my constituents need help, but more needs to be done right now, and I look forward to hearing from the Minister how that can be accomplished.

[Several hon. Members rose—]

[Gill Furniss (in the Chair)]

Order. The winding-up speeches will begin at 2.38 pm, so I am restricting the time to five minutes each.

14:20

[Ruth Cadbury (Brentford and Isleworth) (Lab)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Furniss. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds North East (Fabian Hamilton) for securing this debate. For 17 years, he has been limpet-like in this campaign for justice for Equitable Life victims, as have other Members of this House. It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), who asked some very pertinent questions of the Minister, and I look forward to the Minister’s response.

I am sorry once again to have to stand up on behalf of my constituents who have faced a clear injustice over many years. I know at least four constituents who have been impacted, and it is likely that there are many more. I want to touch on a slightly wider theme: the injustice caused by what I can describe only as a series of financial scams and the weak response of successive Governments. This is not just about the Equitable Life scandal. Since I first entered this House in 2015, I have spoken up on the loan charge scandal, the Football Index scandal, the London Capital & Finance scandal, and now the Equitable Life scandal. The common theme of all those scandals is that the victims suffer financial hardship.

One constituent affected by the Equitable Life scandal was estimated to have had over £20,000 taken from him. “Taken” is the key word; it was not lost. That is what campaigners who were fleeced when Football Index collapsed made sure to tell me: “Use the word ‘taken’, not ‘lost’, Ruth.” A wallet is lost behind a sofa; money is taken from a wallet by a crook.

My constituent is not alone. Many people have had money taken from them as a result of this scandal. As other Members said, many are now much older. My constituent is in his 80s, and that is precisely the stage of life when people need money for social care, for their families or simply to enjoy their remaining life. It should be a time when people can relax, but they cannot. In too many cases over the past 30 years, the actions of private companies have led to constituents suffering.

During the Football Index scandal, one of my constituents had £10,000 taken. During the collapse of London Capital & Finance, a constituent had £120,000 taken. In both cases and that of Equitable Life, it is clear that the regulators, which exist to protect our constituents, failed to act.

Why does that matter? First, our constituents end up having money taken from them and their lives turned upside down. Secondly, the Government have to step in and provide financial compensation—taxpayers’ money—but it is too often inadequate and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds North East said, some do not get any money at all. It is right that the Government provided compensation for my constituents and others who suffered as a result of this injustice, but we should not have got there in the first place.

The Equitable Life scandal is a reminder of what happens when regulators fail to act and private companies operate in an underhand manner and get away with it. Over the past decade, too many regulators have become hollowed out and either have failed to act at all or have acted too late. I feel somewhat nervous about even my own party in government talking about doing away with regulators. We sadly need regulators, because there will always be scammers.

It is the Government, taxpayers and ultimately the victims who end up picking up the tab when operators act against the honest aspirations of hard-working people. Far too often in these scandals, the private companies and directors get off scot-free. In many cases, they get to make more money and go on to fleece someone else.

The Equitable Members Action Group continues to campaign on behalf of those affected, and has argued that there needs to be greater transparency from the Treasury about the remaining money that has not been allocated to victims. I hope the Treasury can meet and engage with those campaigning on this injustice. I hope the debate serves as an opportunity for this House to remember the importance of having regulators that are able to act and to act swiftly.

14:24

[Andrew George (St Ives) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Ruth Cadbury). I congratulate the hon. Member for Leeds North East (Fabian Hamilton) for the way in which he brought the issue forward and articulated the case, which I thoroughly endorse. I could repeat the points made by all speakers so far, but I will not—there will not be time anyway.

All I will say is that I was engaged on debates on this issue prior to starting my nine-year sabbatical from this place in 2015. At that stage, I thought we were making progress, particularly after the Government had at least accepted the ombudsman’s case, although they did not provide sufficient compensation at the time. I assumed that, by the time I came back nine years later, the matter would be resolved and there would no longer be an issue. However, we are no further forward than we were in 2015.

[Tessa Munt (Wells and Mendip Hills) (LD)]

I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Leeds North East (Fabian Hamilton) for the debate. Exactly the same thing happened to me: I have had my nine-year sabbatical and we were talking about this for five years before I left. I pay tribute to the late Michael Oliver, who lived in my constituency. He is one of the 1,500 people who were affected by this absolute scandal. I am disappointed to find that I am back here, 16 years later, running through the same flipping arguments. Does my hon. Friend agree?

[Andrew George]

Perhaps we should form the nine-year sabbatical club, and compare this issue with others that have simply not moved forward.

As the hon. Member for Leeds North East explained, the situation is entirely down to regulatory maladministration and failure. It is Government failure. The hon. Member for Brentford and Isleworth implied that there were crooks involved; certainly money was taken improperly, and there was a failure on the part of Government to protect investors in the way that they should have done at the time.

I say gently that I remember at the time that the then Labour Opposition complained that the announced package of £1.5 billion was insufficient—Oppositions do this, and I am not making a Punch and Judy point, but here is an opportunity for a Labour Government to stand up to the criticisms they raised at that time and to address the issue.

As the hon. Member for Leeds North East rightly said, there is still money in the pot. If more than a third of the £4.1 billion that was identified as needed in compensation was provided through the £1.5 billion package from the Government, why is it that my constituents who I talk to and who are still very embittered, understandably, about this situation, are only getting 22.4%? The sums do not add up. As the hon. Member for Leeds North East explained, it is because of the way this particular cake has been cut up.

The Minister responding to the debate also replied to my hon. Friend the Member for North Shropshire (Helen Morgan) in March this year, saying that the scheme is

“on track to distribute the remainder of the £1.5 billion as planned”

in annual payments to eligible policyholders. If that, at least, could be done, that would be great, so that those who should be receiving compensation actually receive it—although, again, it is insufficient.

In my view, it is best to humanise the situation. For the many constituents who brought their cases to me, the situation has caused a strong sense of embitterment. My constituency has a large number of people who are self-employed but still live on the margins, and they have scrimped and saved to invest in their pensions and future. They looked for a reputable company, thought that Equitable Life was one and invested through it. One such person is Howard, who in 1978, started to save with what he understood to be the best company he could find: Equitable Life. He told me:

“I was self-employed living and working in a Cornish village where I was born and brought up and still live after 86 years with my wife, who has dementia and is registered blind. We pay for and rely on others to do everything for us like food, cleaning, driving...even twice every day carers come attending both of us...THIS IS SHOCKING, THIS IS ROBBERY BY OUR GOVERNMENT!!”

In 1995, Teresa opened an Equitable Life personal pension plan with a small monthly payment, as well as a separate bond. She told me:

“When Eq. Life ceased business, I transferred the small pension amount to link it with a work pension I had.”

She is supposed to be retired, but she now has to work part time to make ends meet. She said:

“I have always endeavoured to save as best as able, which all governments encourage us to do. However, after all this time I don’t think we will ever receive what is owed to us.”

Surely we can reassure people that they will get what they are due. I congratulate the hon. Member for Leeds North East and all other Members who have engaged with the issue; I hope that the Minister is listening and will address it.

14:31

[Sir Christopher Chope (Christchurch) (Con)]

Let us put the issue in context. The headline today is that we now have £3 trillion of national debt, which represents an increase of £1 trillion over the last six years. That debt has accumulated largely because of Treasury neglect and bad policy. The Treasury continues to talk about having low interest rates and an inflation target of 2%, but as we now know, it consistently allows inflation to be above 2%, with the most recent figure being 3.5%. That erodes the value of people’s pensions. Under successive Governments, the Treasury has behaved appallingly on the Equitable Life pensioners. I congratulate the hon. Member for Leeds North East (Fabian Hamilton) on securing this debate and introducing it so well. He asked four pertinent questions—nice, easy, simple questions—and I hope that the Minister will answer each of them affirmatively in his response.

My interest in this subject goes back many years, not only because my constituents were badly affected by the collapse of Equitable Life, but because I was a shadow Treasury Minister when the Treasury set up Lord Penrose’s inquiry into the scandal. That inquiry is another example of the Treasury delaying the process to try to kick the can down the road. Although the inquiry was initiated in 2001 and Lord Penrose reported to the relevant Treasury Minister at the time, Ruth Kelly, in December 2003, it was three or four months before the Treasury deigned to publish his report, and another four years after that before the publication of the ombudsman’s report. In setting up the inquiry, the Treasury deliberately prevented Penrose from finding issues of maladministration. The Treasury has been complicit in denying the victims of regulatory failure the compensation to which they should have been, and still are, entitled.

Successive Governments are responsible for allowing this appalling saga to continue. Today, the Minister has the opportunity to change that and restore public confidence in the Government, the blob and the way in which such things are administered. Earlier I asked the question: who regulates the regulators? If a regulator is in place and that regulator falls down on his responsibilities, people expect that there will be some redress, but that does not seem to be accepted at the highest levels in Government, so I hope that that can change.

This issue is not going to go away. That is a tribute to the persistence of parliamentary colleagues, the EMAG campaigners and our constituents, who are behind all this and who are saying, “What has happened to this extra money? Why can’t we have it paid out to us?” I said at the beginning that in the context of where we are with the national debt, this is very small beer, but it is not the money so much as the principle that is important, and I think that the principle is overridingly in favour of paying out what is due to these people, who were victims of Government maladministration.

14:35

[Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Furniss. Many thanks to the hon. Member for Leeds North East (Fabian Hamilton) for such comprehensive opening remarks. Certainly for those of us who have been in Parliament for slightly less time, that was a very useful reminder of how we got to where we are today.

The Equitable Life scandal involved the near collapse of the UK’s oldest mutual insurer after it failed to honour guaranteed pension payouts. The debacle exposed regulatory failures and caused significant financial losses for nearly a million policyholders across the country, including many of my constituents in Richmond Park. Approximately 2,000 people in every single constituency across the country have lost pension savings because of mistakes by successive Governments and the regulators. The collapse of Equitable Life was one of the biggest scandals in UK financial services history. Over 1 million people lost a significant part of their retirement savings. Their retirement plans were blown apart, as we heard from many contributors today. Typical Equitable Life victims included retired nurses, teachers, civil servants, factory and shop workers and small business owners—people who had worked hard and saved diligently for decades.

In 2008, the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman concluded that victims’ losses were directly attributable to a decade of serial maladministration by Departments and their agencies. The state has accepted responsibility and accepts how much people lost, but the ombudsman’s recommendations have not been fully implemented. In recommending redress, the ombudsman called on the Government to establish and fund a compensation scheme

“to put those people who have suffered a relative loss back into the position that they would have been in had maladministration not occurred.”

In 2010, the Government accepted in full the ombudsman’s findings. The Government accepted that victims’ losses amounted to more than £4 billion. Although 37,000 with-profits annuitants are being fully compensated, 895,000 people have received only 22.5% of their acknowledged losses.

When the Liberal Democrats were in government, we made good on our manifesto commitment to set up a proper compensation fund in line with the ombudsman’s recommendations. The initial compensation scheme was set up during the time of the financial crisis and sought to balance victims’ needs with the capacity of public finances. Many victims still have concerns about the allocation of that compensation and the methodology used to distribute it. Although I am personally not disappointed to welcome my hon. Friends the Members for St Ives (Andrew George) and for Wells and Mendip Hills (Tessa Munt) back from their “sabbaticals”, I share their frustration that after all this time, this issue is still being discussed.

Constituents of mine in Richmond Park, like many other constituents, have been affected by this situation. I have heard from one couple who, after having diligently worked and served as respected professionals for decades, have had their retirement burdened by this appalling miscarriage of justice. Along with many other long-suffering members and former members of Equitable Life, they saw their life pension savings decimated by Government malfeasance.

According to the Equitable Members Action Group, as of 2025 more than £170 million of compensation already allocated and forecast to be paid to victims was set to be kept by the Treasury and not reach the people affected. The Government should release that money in full and immediately to affected policyholders, as it was always intended to be. In addition, the Government should listen to the concerns of those affected by the collapse of Equitable Life and establish an independent commissioner to assess individuals’ claims. That would ensure that the victims of the Equitable Life scandal, such as my constituents, were finally treated fairly and properly compensated.

14:39

[Richard Fuller (North Bedfordshire) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Furniss. We know that issues of injustice can take an awfully long time to reach a resolution in Parliament. It is important that people who have or feel that they have suffered an injustice at the hands of the state should have worthy champions who have the doggedness and stamina to continue to make their case, so I am delighted to congratulate the hon. Member for Leeds North East (Fabian Hamilton) on securing today’s debate.

As has been noted, the issue goes back through this Labour Government, previous Conservative Governments, the coalition Government, the Brown Government, all the way back to Blair. Let us take a moment to think about the individuals who have already been waiting two decades and more for what they would see is a full resolution. As a Member of Parliament myself for periods of that time, I have had a sense that this matter is unfinished business.

I was interested to listen to some of the comments. One issue that was raised, most notably by the hon. Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Ruth Cadbury) and my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Sir Christopher Chope), was on regulation and the role of regulators. On the different perspectives and remedies, I think I am closer to the one suggested by my hon. Friend. The hon. Member for Brentford and Isleworth made the point that regulators are being hollowed out. I would say that on average they have greater scope, greater funding and more people. There is an issue with their focus, but more importantly, the structures to hold regulators to account are insufficient. There is no annual review of each regulator that is performed as effectively as in other areas, so I would encourage the hon. Member to press that point to improve our system of regulating the regulators.

[Ruth Cadbury]

I respect the shadow Minister’s views, but adequate powers and adequate resources go together. Too often since I have been in this place I have heard again and again that regulators would like to have done more and simply do not have the capacity. They do not have the staff in place. That is my view.

[Richard Fuller]

I do not want to go too far off the topic, because I am a bit of a nerd on regulating regulators. We can find time later to talk about that. It was an important point, as was the point made by the hon. Member for St Ives (Andrew George). I am glad he did not make a party political point, but it is a relevant point that the Labour party’s position in opposition was that the compensation was not sufficiently substantial.

I want to make three broad points in the lead-up to questions on each to the Minister. The first point I want to establish is that making changes to the settlement is not set in stone; it is a matter of Government choice. I want to give an example, which I raise solely for the purposes of talking about choice on pensions, not to talk about the decision that was made, because it is about choice. This is about mineworkers’ pensions. The incoming Labour Government made the choice in the case of the mineworkers’ pensions to move the surplus that had been accumulated in their fund to the mineworkers rather than back to the taxpayer—back to the Government. So it was a use of otherwise public funds that resulted in a boost to mineworkers’ pensions of about 30% to 32%. That was a choice.

I just ask the Minister to consider this. It was a choice by the Government to boost pensions that were already being paid “in full”, and yet the Government seem to have no choice about people who had an 80% decline in their pensions. It might strike some as odd, with a different set of values, to treat one differently from another. I would be interested in the Minister’s thoughts on that, but the point that I am trying to make is that this is a matter of choice for the Government.

My second point leads from a quote given by the Minister’s colleague, the Financial Secretary to the Treasury, who said on this matter in September 2026:

“There are no plans to reopen any decisions relating to the Payment Scheme or review”.

That is an interesting phrase, because part of the conditions around those decisions are couched in different wordings of the phrase—that the settlement amount was determined in consideration of the “position of public finances”. That was stated way back in 2008 and also when the settlement was announced in 2011. It was alluded to again in 2016. Given that the Minister’s colleague said there are no plans to reopen any decisions, can the Minister confirm that it is still the case that considering the state of the public finances is a live factor that is encapsulated in that?

What I mean by that question is, should there be a change in the public finances, would there then be scope for the Government to change their mind? That is an important point. I do not want to lay out a false hope, but the settlement amount was decided specifically in consideration of the public finances at the time. Times now may be better or worse, but they are certainly different. When we hear the Minister’s response or read the statement made by the Minister’s colleague saying that there are no plans to reopen any decisions, it is important that it is clear that they are still open to consideration if the public finances change.

I want finally to return to what the hon. Member for Leeds North East said in his excellent speech about unallocated and unspent moneys. He said that if funds have been allocated but are not needed to meet the liabilities for which they were intended, then they should be used to compensate people who have still not received full redress. That really is a question about what those unspent funds would do. That partly encompasses the reserve and partly encompasses unallocated moneys. In the big scheme of things, it would be very helpful if the Minister could confirm that it is the intention that those moneys in that envelope will be reallocated to policyholders, rather than being swept back into general taxpayer money.

The last thing we want to come out of this debate is the Minister being unclear with Equitable Life policyholders, who in some cases have lost 80% of their pensions already, or suggesting that if there are moneys left in the envelope, which was set at a particular level at a particular time because of the state of public finances, any surplus moneys will be squirrelled away and given to the Government again. I would be very grateful if the Minister could answer those three questions.

14:48

[The Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury (Torsten Bell)]

It is always a privilege to respond to a debate under your chairmanship, Ms Furniss. Let me start by thanking my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds North East (Fabian Hamilton) for opening the debate. He was referred to as a limpet earlier, but he has been more proactive than that in his campaigning on this issue over the years. It is an important issue to him and to lots of other hon. Members. I should echo the point he made at the beginning about the right hon. Member for Goole and Pocklington (David Davis), who is not in the Chamber but who has been focused on this issue for a long time. Members have campaigned on this issue with tireless energy and kept the issue in the spotlight.

I want to reflect on some of the astute points that several hon. Members made. The truth is that it is not possible to restore trust entirely—certainly, not in the firm that was involved in this among the people affected, but also probably in the regulator, but hopefully Members’ campaigning has restored trust in local representation and the campaigning energy of local representatives.

The issue is even more important to the thousands of Equitable Life savers who were affected. The point, which was well made by the hon. Member for Christchurch (Sir Christopher Chope) and others, about the human effect is one that I am sure everybody in this Chamber has at the front of their mind. Those affected included my grandfather, and I have met lots of other constituents who were members of the mutual before it disappeared. I have also met with the action group, which many hon. Members have also met with. We have all heard about the kinds of human impacts that hon. Members have set out well today.

On the big picture, several hon. Members, including my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds North East and my hon. Friend the Member for Bracknell (Peter Swallow) talked about the importance of people having trust in pensions. This is a particular part of the pension system, but the point also applies to the entire pension system. That is something I take very seriously indeed as the Pensions Minister. I was up in Liverpool at the Pensions UK conference last week talking in those exact terms about how our task is to make sure that we address what is today, if we are honest, too low a level of trust in pensions. That is true of both state and private pensions. It is our job to rebuild that trust. That includes how, in some parts, pension scams are on the rise—my hon. Friend the Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Ruth Cadbury) raised that.

Obviously, the Financial Services Compensation Scheme now exists, in a way that it did not in the period that we are talking about, when we are talking about pensions operating within the contract-based part of the pensions system. That is a big change, and it is compensation paid not by taxpayers, but by the financial services industry itself. That is the answer to the specific question posed by the hon. Member for Christchurch about what happens when the regulators or, more importantly, the providers fail. The answer is that there is a compensation scheme, although we are here because there was not a compensation scheme in place—and it has caps in terms of the compensation due.

I will make some progress on the specifics of this case. Hon. Members will be aware this is a topic that has been well documented and explored over the years—the hon. Member for St Ives (Andrew George) set out the role of the sabbatical for him in the period in which that has taken place. The Equitable Life payment scheme was established to make payments to eligible policyholders where maladministration had been found. That maladministration contributed to some savers suffering a relative loss totalling £4.1 billion. Relative loss was defined as the difference between the value of the policyholder’s funds with Equitable Life and what they would have received if they had made a comparable investment elsewhere. I am merely pointing out that that is not a cash loss; it is a loss relative to a counterfactual of having invested in a different but similar product.

That approach followed the 2008 parliamentary ombudsman’s report into the collapse, and was the foundation of the payment scheme. In 2010, the Government of the day accepted the ombudsman’s findings and chose to allocate in the region of £1.5 billion —the quote from the Chancellor at the time—to make tax-free payments to eligible policyholders in respect of the reduced returns that they received from their investments. That Government chose what they saw as the correct balance of interests between the interests of the affected policyholders and taxpayers. That is the choice that was made. I am obviously fully aware that, as we have again heard today, people are dissatisfied with that £1.5 billion and suggest that the issue should be reopened.

It is not for me to defend the decisions made by the then Conservative and Liberal Democrat coalition Government. To be fair to the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney), she came closest to doing so today, but other colleagues chose not to—[Interruption.] The hon. Lady chose to defend the decisions of that Government to some degree and others obviously did not. The balance of opinion in this Chamber is that the then Government made a mistake in the size of the compensation that was allocated. It is not for me to make that case, but were they here to do so, they would say that decisions need to be fair to taxpayers as well as policyholders, and they would point out that there is a wide range of people responsible for the disaster that we saw in Equitable Life, including those who were responsible for the firm through that period in the 1990s when very reprehensible actions took place.

[Richard Fuller]

The Minister is making the case that the position when that settlement was made about balance between taxpayers and policyholders was a matter of fault and responsibility. Does he not also recognise that a substantial part of that balance was to do with the state of the public finances? Will he confirm that that is still a live consideration in the Treasury that could in future lead to the settlement being reopened?

[Torsten Bell]

I will come to the hon. Gentleman’s last question towards the end of my remarks, but on his first point he is absolutely right to say that the then Government’s key consideration—when I referenced taxpayers—was the public finances. That is the point being made. That was the key driver in the decision by the then Government about how much money to allocate, rather than trying some kind of specific accounting for the impact of the maladministration per se.

Ministers at the time also noted the consistency of their decision with the ombudsman’s report—we have discussed a bit of that today—and the ombudsman subsequently wrote on this issue to the all-party parliamentary group, which I think several hon. Members present have been part of, confirming that the then Government’s decisions

“cannot be said to be incompatible with the report.”

As hon. Members know, following representations from groups such as the Equitable Members Action Group, the Government prioritised those acknowledged by all parties to be the most vulnerable—the with-profit annuitants. They received 100% of their losses. That meant that, of the £1.5 billion, £725 million was allocated to with-profit annuitants, to be paid annually over the duration of the annuity, which continues to this day. That included the £100 million contingency fund—that is the answer to the question put by the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon)—to ensure that the provision for the annuitants, should they live longer than expected, was there. That is obviously a standard actuarial process; it is what sits behind the regulation of the insurance sector when annuities are being sold. The remaining £775 million was allocated to be paid as lump sums to with-profits non-annuitants holding other products.

As for the details of how much has been spent, I can provide answers to the questions put by several hon. Members. As of 30 September 2026, the total value of payments made by the scheme was almost exactly £1.4 billion—it is just short of that figure—and that is an increase on the previous figure that the hon. Member for Christchurch cited.

I note the references in this debate to the pre-1992 with-profit annuity holders. The coalition Government excluded them from the scheme, not because they had not suffered real impacts from the collapse of Equitable Life—I think the then Government recognised that they had suffered real impacts—but because their purchase of those annuities, which is the point at which someone locks into the decision in the case of an annuity, was outside the period of maladministration, so the Government would have struggled to find a locus to make a payment in the terms of a scheme, because there was no maladministration to tie a payment to. Again, it is not for me to defend that Government. However, if they were here today, that is how they would explain the decision that was taken. That is why the 2013 decision, which was referenced by the then Government, to provide separate, tax-free ex gratia payments was the way in which the previous Government chose to proceed.

The scheme has now been fully wound down; it was closed in 2016 by the then Conservative Government. That is now over a decade ago. I suspect that hon. Members know that I cannot give all of them, or indeed all the impressive campaigners on this issue, the answer that they would like—a straight “more compensation”. I suspect that hon. Members know that that is the case. However, I want to give them what I think is the next best thing, which is a straight answer, and it is the direct answer to the question put by the hon. Member for North Bedfordshire (Richard Fuller), the Opposition spokesperson. It is that there are no plans to reopen the previous policy decisions taken by the previous Government. The previous Government made decisions given the public finances at the time. Those decisions were debated by that Parliament—some Members present were part of that Parliament, and the rest of us respect the decisions of that House.

The only part of the payment scheme in operation is the annual payments made to eligible annuitants. The scheme is on track to distribute the remainder of the funds allocated, as planned, on that basis. The right thing for this Government to do is to ensure that the ongoing payments to those eligible with-profit annuity holders—the group recognised, I think by all of us, to be the most vulnerable—continue to be made. I will finish by assuring them that the funding for those payments remains protected and again thanking all hon. Members who have spoken in this debate.

[Gill Furniss (in the Chair)]

Fabian Hamilton, you have two minutes in which to respond to the debate.

14:58

[Fabian Hamilton]

I, too, thank all hon. and right hon. Members who have taken part in the debate: the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), who is always direct and forthright; my hon. Friend the Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Ruth Cadbury); the hon. Members for St Ives (Andrew George) and for Christchurch (Sir Christopher Chope), who made excellent contributions; the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney), the Liberal Democrat spokesperson; the hon. Member for North Bedfordshire (Richard Fuller), the shadow Minister; and, of course, the Minister.

I first tabled a debate on this issue in June 2009—that was the first debate on this issue in this Chamber—and other Members have been debating the issue for even longer. I leave Members with the thought that compensation for Equitable Life policyholders is not just something that unfortunately not been fully fulfilled. My view, which was the view of many at the time, is that compensation is a moral obligation that has never been fulfilled. It is tragic that there is no question of reopening the scheme or using the statistics—the figures—about the moneys that are left; I think the Minister has just completely contradicted the view that there is no such money left.

Unlike two colleagues—the hon. Members for St Ives and for Wells and Mendip Hills (Tessa Munt)—I have not had a sabbatical. Nevertheless, I and many others who have campaigned on this issue will continue to campaign until the compensation is paid in full, however unlikely that may be. I again thank everybody for the part they have played in today’s debate, and also EMAG for all its work.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered the matter of compensation for Equitable Life policyholders.

15:00

Sitting suspended.

Jarrow Crusade

Thursday 22nd October 2026 Westminster Hall

[Wera Hobhouse in the Chair]

15:10

[Kate Osborne (Jarrow and Gateshead East) (Lab)]

I beg to move,

That this House has considered the legacy of the Jarrow Crusade on the 90th anniversary.

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Hobhouse. The Jarrow crusade is now rightly remembered as a pivotal moment in UK history, not just in my brilliant constituency of Jarrow and Gateshead East but across the UK. Jarrow is a town with a proud history of people organising together to stand up to injustice and demand something better—one that refuses to accept that poverty, exploitation and inequality are simply the natural order of things.

On 5 October 1936, 200 unemployed men left Jarrow to begin a near-300-mile journey to London. Their petition represented the hopes of a community devastated by industrial decline and mass unemployment. They demonstrated the strength, solidarity and determination of the people of Jarrow. Ninety years later, their story is still relevant and needs to be heard.

Standing with the marchers’ descendants in front of No. 10 this week, with the original petition box that they carried all that way, was extremely moving. The Prime Minister bringing the descendants into No. 10 for a cup of tea and a discussion, and listening to their memories and our history, helped to right the historic wrong by giving the families the welcome that the marchers should have received back in 1936. I place on record my thanks to the Prime Minister and his team for the time they spent with us all and for helping to host the events this month. Listening to memories and stories of those crusaders from their children has been moving and inspiring.

It is a real honour to lead this debate today. Our history must be remembered and celebrated for the benefit of a new generation, but it must also be used to move forward, to learn from and to build a better world, because while some progress has been made, there is still a lot to do. Those marchers in 1936 were demanding the right to work, the dignity of providing for their families and the opportunity to build a future for their community. They were fighting against health inequality, poverty and a lack of housing. Ninety years later, many of those challenges remain.

In my constituency, 39% of children still live in food poverty, too many people are still in insecure work, and the north-east is still being left behind. Across South Tyneside, the number of people aged 18 to 21 claiming unemployment benefits is 61% higher than the national average. Local weekly earnings remain below the national average. Almost a century on from the march, generations are still growing up in and around Jarrow unable to find suitable work and with high levels of inequality and poverty.

Since becoming Jarrow’s MP in 2019, I have had to confront what those circumstances mean for the people I represent. We know all too well the lasting consequences that the loss of industry can have on a community. After the closure of the shipyards, skilled workers were left without jobs, families faced poverty and uncertainty, and the businesses and communities that depended on the shipyards suffered too. The loss of industry was not confined to the factory gates; it reached into people’s homes, affected children’s prospects, undermined the confidence of an entire town and shifted our identity. We see similar challenges playing out now. These commemorative events and today’s debate are about remembering those who bravely marched to demand better, but they are also about looking to the future and embracing the potential of the north-east, because the challenges that faced working-class communities then continue to face them.

We must appreciate the progress we have made and recognise what remains to be done. Thanks to this Labour Government, good steps have already been taken to deliver for our community, and I welcome them. Our landmark Employment Rights Act 2025 means that workers can feel more secure, valued and stable, with stronger rights to dignified, unionised work that pays well. Access to decent work that pays fairly and provides security is intrinsic to ensuring that no community like ours is left behind.

Similarly, thanks to the Pride in Place programme, I have secured £20 million for our community. Priorities for the investment include creating opportunities for young people, rebuilding our town centre and strengthening community organisations. Strengthening community organisations matters, because investment alone does not change communities; giving communities a voice in what that change looks like does.

For too many families in Jarrow, being in work does not provide the financial security that they deserve. Parents are working hard, but their wages are still insufficient to provide the opportunities that they want for their children. Too many young people are struggling to find secure, well-paid employment that would allow them to build a future in the communities where they grew up. Those are the same fundamental challenges that the Jarrow crusaders marched to confront 90 years ago, and they are why we cannot afford to be complacent about the progress we have made.

Although we can and should celebrate the progress that the Government have made, and the welcome new steps of our Prime Minister, it is clear that we still need more investment in the north-east to create well-paid and secure jobs and to give local people more of a say in decisions that affect their lives. That includes bringing shipbuilding back to the Tyne, with more jobs, more apprenticeships and more investment. We must build on the industrial heritage of the north-east, which has a history of skilled, hard-working people that continues to define my constituency to this day and will do so long into the future.

I put it on the record how pleased I was to hear the Chancellor mention Jarrow and the crusade in one of his speeches, and how pleased I am that he met apprentices from Balaena. Will the Minister commit to pushing for more shipbuilding and other investment in the north-east and to tackling youth unemployment and poverty with good, highly skilled, well-paid jobs and education opportunities for our communities? I also ask him what further steps the Government are taking to ensure that communities such as Jarrow are at the heart of plans for industrial growth and that the jobs and opportunities created by that investment benefit local people. As we mark 90 years since the Jarrow crusade, will he join me in recognising not only the extraordinary determination of those who marched then, but the importance of continuing the fight for decent jobs, dignity at work and opportunities for working-class communities today?

It has been wonderful to bring the hope that the Prime Minister has been speaking about back to the north, particularly the north-east, and to share our history with a new generation. The greatest lesson of the Jarrow crusade is what ordinary people can achieve when they organise, work together and stand up for one another. By the centenary in 2036, I want us to be able to celebrate real progress in tackling poverty and creating opportunities for every child in Jarrow, and I hope the Minister joins me in that commitment.

15:18

[Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)]

It is always a real pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Hobhouse. I thank the hon. Member for Jarrow and Gateshead East (Kate Osborne) for setting the scene incredibly well.

It is no secret that I love history, but I love the history of social politics as well, and this story is a great example of that key issue. The nature of my life, and I suspect the life of most of us here, is to look out for those who are less well off. Our job, and my privilege and honour as the MP for Strangford, is to chase the bread-and-butter issues. Having read this story over the years, I am pleased that the hon. Lady has brought it forward. It is not just a significant historical moment for her constituency; it holds immense importance for workers across this great United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. I will mention this later in my speech, but the shipworkers at Harland & Wolff in Northern Ireland were of a similar mind and made a similar protest to that of the men from Jarrow.

I am pleased to see the Minister in his place; I have absolutely no doubt that we will get an encouraging response to our requests. I am also pleased to see the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Bromley and Biggin Hill (Peter Fortune), and the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney). It is incredibly encouraging to hear that, 90 years after the Jarrow crusade, the men’s descendants were invited to Downing Street. That is a real privilege. It is an acknowledgment of the significance of their work—those 200 men marching some 300 miles—that they were recognised centrally in Government by our Prime Minister. It endorses that campaign of many years ago. That has offered a sense a closure for many whose ancestors have passed on, as the difficulties that their families faced have finally been formally acknowledged.

The determination of those formidable men who marched almost 300 miles to make their case for employment was admirable. We must remember that they did not take the train, a vehicle or a horse and carriage; they walked 300 miles, because they believed in the campaign. As someone who loves history, I love the idea that people thought so much of the campaign that they did that. Although they probably returned from London feeling dejected because they had not achieved their goal, I want to make a point about what they did achieve. They achieved the establishment of some social reforms. They achieved the right to have work. They were perhaps the first people to see the NHS and the welfare system introduced, as it was later by the Labour Government. Those were the key social issues that they were chasing way back then. They may have felt dejected some 90 years ago, but the Jarrow crusaders can claim that their walk introduced some of those social reforms. It introduced the issues to which the hon. Member for Jarrow and Gateshead East referred: better housing, the right to better working conditions and the right to secure work.

Shipbuilding is an industry that Northern Ireland shares with the north-east of England, and both have experienced the consequences of industrial decline. When the Jarrow men were marching some 90 years ago, men in Belfast were doing something similar—maybe not as far as 300 miles, but they were out protesting in support of the Jarrow men. Both communities have experienced the consequences of industrial decline, striking or taking action over job losses and increasing poverty. Poverty was as rife in Jarrow as it was in Belfast and in other parts of the United Kingdom. However, we must never be tempted to write off shipbuilding and engineering as industries of the past. With the recent investment in defence, there is an opportunity to rebuild industry in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and support job creation.

In his response to our requests, the Minister will undoubtedly tell us about the progress that the Government are making. I can see that progress in Belfast with Harland & Wolff: the Government are handing out contracts to ensure that Harland & Wolff can recruit in Belfast again—not like it did when there were 25,000-odd workers, but 1,000 or 2,000—and establish itself at the forefront of modern shipbuilding. That is good news for Northern Ireland, for the shipyard in Belfast and for my constituents in Strangford, who are only 15 or 20 minutes away from possible employment.

I want to make a plea, if I can. Today, too many young people across the United Kingdom feel, as the men who took part in the Jarrow crusade did, that their efforts are being ignored. As elected representatives, we always encourage our constituents—especially our young people—to apply for jobs, but some young people say to me, “I’ve made application after application, and I haven’t even had a letter of response from the employers,” so many of them despair. I am really encouraged by the Prime Minister’s commitment to try to help young people. He is saying the right things, but the right words mean something only when they become the reality. He said that young people today face

“an economic catastrophe and a moral failure”,

and he and the Government have indicated that that must be righted.

I will tell a quick story about my youngest son. He is a young man now, married with two children, but I remember that when he first applied for a job he made something like 70 applications. Unfortunately, not one was successful and he did not get one reply—that was even more discouraging. If someone writes you a letter, you might not agree with them, but for goodness’s sake, you should write back and tell them that.

It was disappointing, but then a part-time job came up. It was only four hours—this was when he was just 18, 19 or 20—and he said, “What should I do?” I said, “You take the job, mate, and I tell you what: make sure you are 15 minutes early and stay 15 minutes later.” He did, and then the job was eight hours, then 16 hours, then 24 hours, then 36 hours and then 40 hours. Then he became the deputy manager of the shop, then the manager and then the manager of another shop. Those are the things that give our young people encouragement.

In the Prime Minister’s commitment, I see an opportunity to encourage our young people and give them hope for the future. Not that I am better than anybody else, but when the Prime Minister came here to take his oath, I saw him beforehand. I remember him from when he was last here in 2015. I shook his hand, gave him a hug and wished him well. I said, “Prime Minister, our people need hope. Our people need encouragement. That’s what I ask you to do for our people.” The Prime Minister’s word has been “hope”, not because I said it to him, but because he appreciated—perhaps we both appreciated—what the word was to be.

The concern must be acted upon. I call on the Government to grow British industry and invest in job creation to ensure that our young people are supported into employment. The 200 men who marched from Jarrow some 90 years ago should never have had to walk to London to make their demands, but they did, and they perhaps changed a part of history. That encourages us all as we look forward. Similarly, young people today should not feel that they have to go to extreme lengths to be heard by the Government. Like the Prime Minister, I hope for a change that makes a difference, encourages our young people, lifts this nation and makes us more united so that we can do better for our people and young people of the future. To the hon. Member for Jarrow and Gateshead East, I again say well done.

15:28

[Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Hobhouse. I thank the hon. Member for Jarrow and Gateshead East (Kate Osborne) for her work in securing this debate and keeping the march in public and political discourse. The descendants of the marchers have a strong voice and champion in this place.

The Jarrow crusade stands as a reminder of the devastating impact that chronic poverty and mass unemployment can have, as was experienced in Jarrow during the 1930s. Led by David Riley and former MP Ellen Wilkinson, the Jarrow crusade highlighted many of the challenges that Britain faced in the 1930s. The global depression had devastating repercussions for areas of heavy industry such as Jarrow. Many towns and cities that relied on industry passed through a period of intense industrial depression. Many towns, including Jarrow, saw the closure of shipyards and steelworks, which meant that thousands of jobs in critical sectors were lost.

Thousands of jobs were lost across Jarrow. Of the 8,000 people previously employed, many of them skilled workers, only 100 remained in work, often in unreliable and unstable positions. In October 1936, 200 unemployed men set out from Jarrow on a 26-day journey to London to demand jobs and investment for their town, following the widespread unemployment after the closure of Palmer’s shipyard. The marchers aimed to arrive in Westminster at the opening of Parliament to present a petition signed by 12,000 residents of Jarrow. While there was no immediate support provided, the publicity that accompanied the crusade helped to generate some renewal for the town, and the relationship between large businesses and the Government remained under scrutiny.

On the 90th anniversary of the Jarrow march, we are confronted with an alarming unemployment crisis that is not restricted to just one sector and that extends far beyond the town of Jarrow. Within this concerning picture, the trajectory of youth unemployment has been even worse. The joblessness rate for 16 to 24-year-olds currently stands at an alarming 15%, but in London, that figure is 25%. That is the highest youth unemployment rate in more than a decade, and the first time on record that the UK’s youth unemployment rate has exceeded the EU average.

The symbolism of the Jarrow march ending in the country’s capital is ironic because it no longer represents the hub of employment opportunities that it did a century ago. While London sends the Treasury a net £43.6 billion a year, unemployment in the capital is on the rise. Londoners are not seeing the same opportunities that were available even a decade ago, while businesses in London are struggling under increasing financial pressure. 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 a chance to get their foot on the career ladder.

We must do everything we possibly can to bring young people into work. Let us cut national insurance contributions, fairly implement the secondary legislation from the Employment Rights Act 2025 and invest to create a skilled workforce by properly reforming the apprenticeship levy, which will benefit jobseekers and employers alike. The Liberal Democrats recognise the courage and determination of the marchers, and while we may not have a similar symbolic protest currently, the challenges facing our towns and cities need the same urgent attention as the town of Jarrow did 90 years ago. We believe that the Government need to listen to communities and take meaningful action to tackle poverty, boost industry and create good, well-paying jobs.

15:31

[Peter Fortune (Bromley and Biggin Hill) (Con)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Hobhouse—I think for the first time. I congratulate the hon. Member for Jarrow and Gateshead East (Kate Osborne) on securing this debate to recognise the 90th anniversary of the Jarrow march. Her predecessor secured an Adjournment debate on the 75th anniversary; I am pleased that the hon. Lady went down the route of a Westminster Hall debate so that more colleagues had the opportunity to contribute.

I note that some of the Members who contributed to the 75th anniversary debate are here today—I am, of course, referring to the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon). I asked my team if they could find out whether he was there and they said, “He’s not that old!” I said, “I didn’t mean the march—I meant the debate.” He spoke with eloquence and integrity about the need to get young people back into work, which is something I recognise, as I have a 20-year-old and a 17-year-old. I confess to being very jealous that the new Prime Minister has had a hug with him and I have not.

I must ask the forgiveness of the hon. Member for Jarrow and Gateshead East, because Jarrow is over 300 miles from my Bromley and Biggin Hill constituency, so it is not a place that I am overly familiar with. However, as the former home of the Venerable Bede and the original home of one of the most important Bibles in the world, the Jarrow codex, the town is steeped in historical significance. In the early 19th century, a coal industry developed before the shipyard was established in 1852, becoming the first armour plate manufacturer in the world. Over the next 80 years, more than 1,000 ships were launched from Jarrow.

Jarrow has had a lasting impact on the direction of our country, and the Jarrow marchers on that crusade undoubtedly played their part in that. I pay tribute to the hon. Lady for bringing some of the families of the marchers to Downing Street this week alongside a copy of the original petition. I also pay tribute to the Prime Minister for receiving them at No. 10. It will surprise nobody that I rarely speak ill of Stanley Baldwin, but failing to receive the original marchers was wrong, so I am pleased that the current Prime Minister received their families. That rights a historic wrong, and I would like to hope that any Prime Minister of any party would have done the same.

While it was an inherently political event, what makes the Jarrow march stand out in my eyes is how it avoided being too partisan. All the local political parties—Labour, Conservatives and Liberal—gave their support to the march, as did the town’s churches and business community. On top of that, during the journey down to London, the Jarrow marchers received sustenance and hospitality from local branches of all the main political parties.

The Jarrow march was triggered by industrial jobs being lost following the collapse of Palmer’s shipbuilding and iron company and the closure of the shipyard. That is a lesson for today. When we look at the news of the recent 4,000 job losses at Britain’s biggest car manufacturer, the risk of losing our industrial base could not be clearer. Once those industries are gone, it will be incredibly difficult to get them back.

This has been a good-natured and well-intentioned debate, so I say the following out of respect. I want the current Government to consider the chemical, automotive, steel and many other factories and plants that are shutting down because of crippling energy policies, £66 billion in tax rises and burdensome red tape, such as the Employment Rights Act. As a result of that, there are 176,000 fewer jobs available now than when the Government took office. Our industries need to be supported and currently many feel they are not.

Opposition Members do not want to see communities go through what Jarrow experienced in the 1930s, but I fear that we risk seeing our country deindustrialising before our eyes. As we remember the Jarrow march today, I hope the Minister can set out how the Government plan to create the conditions in which countless businesses across the country can manufacturer competitively in Britain.

Cornelius Whalen, who at his 2003 was the last survivor of those who marched the full distance, described the march as “a waste of time”. I respectfully disagree. His family and the families of all the marchers should be proud. History now remembers the march very differently; the Jarrow marchers rightly have an immovable place in our country’s history. Their legacy is far-reaching and will continue to inspire people for years to come. I am proud to be here on behalf of the Opposition to recognise their important contribution to our national story and to hold the Government to account on delivering for British industry and manufacturing.

15:36

[The Minister for Science, Innovation and Investment (Chris McDonald)]

It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Hobhouse. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Jarrow and Gateshead East (Kate Osborne) for securing this debate. She follows in the proud footsteps of her predecessor Ellen Wilkinson, who was the MP for both Jarrow and Middlesbrough.

As we have heard, there is an incredible history of the Jarrow march. For anyone interested, I can strongly recommend Ellen Wilkinson’s book, “The Town that was Murdered”. My own copy is at home on my bookshelf, so I have borrowed the House of Commons Library’s copy. I will be returning it later today, so Members may wish to take it out and study more about the social conditions in Jarrow at the time.

As we have heard, in October 1936, around 200 unemployed men set out from Jarrow and walked almost 300 miles to London asking for the opportunity to work. They carried with them the hopes of a community and a petition signed by 12,000 of their neighbours, but they were ignored by the Government of the day. Those men and their community will not be ignored by history, nor by this Government.

The story of the Jarrow crusade cannot be separated from the story of British industry and shipbuilding. Today, we recognise the UK’s civil maritime sector as it should have been recognised then, as a strategic national asset underpinning prosperity, resilience and security. Shipbuilding ended in Jarrow, but the wider Tyneside retains ship repair capability at Hebburn—a yard recently acquired by Balaena Tyne during my tenure as the shipbuilding Minister. I am pleased to offer reassurance to my hon. Friend the Member for Jarrow and Gateshead East that as Minister for Investment, I am concerned with ensuring that we continue to attract investment into British shipyards. I am working with ministerial colleagues to maximise the opportunity of Government procurement, including opportunities for Hebburn.

Those areas where modern shipbuilding, ship repair and marine fabrication continue benefit from highly skilled, well-paid industrial jobs, and they are often areas of the country that are otherwise lacking in alternatives. That contributes to the growth in every postcode scheme that the Prime Minister has committed to across the whole of our United Kingdom. When I was the shipbuilding Minister, I was pleased to visit Harland & Wolff in Belfast and learn from the managing director. When I asked him, “What is your greatest concern?” he said, “The lack of space,” which is quite remarkable at Harland & Wolff. It shows the strength of British shipbuilding and the opportunity for new orders.

The pride in skill that we saw in Jarrow and that I have seen in British shipyards was demonstrated during the Upper Clyde Shipbuilders dispute of 1971 to 1972. Faced with liquidation and threatened job losses, shop stewards representing 8,000 workers staged a disciplined work-in: they kept the yards operating and continued to build ships under contract. The campaign helped to secure Government investment and preserve shipbuilding employment on the upper Clyde.

A firm tradition of shipbuilding continues today. The sector supports more than 38,000 skilled jobs across the country. The Government are expanding the role of the National Shipbuilding Office to oversee civil shipbuilding decisions and to use procurement more strategically to give British yards and supply chains a clearer pipeline. The forthcoming shipbuilding and maritime technology action plan will seek to align procurement, innovation and industrial capability, to improve pipeline visibility, to accelerate technology adoption, and to strengthen UK supply chains across defence and civil maritime markets. The Government are investing £440 million in UK Shipping Office for Reducing Emissions research and development between 2026 and 2030: the largest Government investment yet in the UK commercial maritime sector, including £150 million for zero emission infrastructure and vessels, and £120 million for clean maritime demonstration projects.

The tragedy at Jarrow—for it was a tragedy—was that the shipbuilding industry and the community that depended on it were left at the mercy of the market, not to improve efficiency or productivity but to effect consolidation that would raise prices. For shipbuilding, a project-based industry with high fixed costs and high economies of scale, that was a disaster.

The community in Jarrow understood the need for industrial transition; they had already transitioned from mining to shipbuilding. They were asking for a transition from shipbuilding to steel. The Government of 1936 took a free market approach; this Government take a different approach: supporting a transition. Alongside our plans for shipbuilding we are reindustrialising the UK, building on our industrial strategy. Reindustrialisation is creating more, better, well-paid jobs in manufacturing and industry, including in those sectors critical to the UK’s resilience. It is bringing back jobs, pride and decency to the places that deindustrialisation most badly affected.

But saying what we will do is not enough; we also know how we will address the situation. The jobs plans that we have set out will ensure that workers have the opportunity to develop the skills they need for the jobs in growing areas, and there are opportunities across the whole country. We have published job plans for digital and technologies, clean energy, life sciences, financial services, construction, and professional and business services. They set out practical actions to tackle workforce and skills challenges.

The jobs plans for professional and business services and for construction were published on Monday and will support 22,500 new under-25 apprenticeships a year in businesses such as accountancy, legal services and consultancy. That comes alongside 40,000 construction placements annually, as part of a previously announced construction industry ambition to create 100,000 jobs a year. Over the next year, the Government will further cut industrial energy costs, roll out further jobs plans in partnership with employers, see our new apprenticeship units and technical excellence colleges train people for growing industries, and strip back unnecessary administrative costs to businesses.

The shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Bromley and Biggin Hill (Peter Fortune), was generous in his remarks, particularly those relating to the Prime Minister, and in his criticism of Stanley Baldwin, but it has been nearly a century so I do not think he is going to get any comeback from that. He also expressed his concern about deindustrialisation in the UK, so I remind him that under the previous Government we lost around 50% of our automotive output, 30% of our chemicals output, 50% of our steel output, and around 30% of our ceramics output.

This Government have made efforts to support those industries, to reinvest and to reindustrialise. Last year, as Industry Minister, I announced a £350 million chemicals resilience fund, a ceramics support scheme, £2.5 billion of support for the steel industry through the steel strategy, the critical minerals strategy, and of course the nationalisation of British Steel. This Government remain committed to supporting the growth of and investment in our industry.

The Liberal Democrat spokesperson, the hon. Member for Richmond Park (Sarah Olney) mentioned the issues affecting young people and their employment. That was also a great concern for those who marched in Jarrow. The social conditions in Jarrow were quite appalling and were the sort of social conditions that can be found today in parts of the country where there are high levels of unemployment. Unemployment and poverty also result in cramped and squalid housing conditions, such as those found in Jarrow at the time. There were high levels of ill health among young people, particularly tuberculosis, and there was a shortage of food, as was noted at the time by the very low consumption of milk by children in the local area. This was compounded by the inability of the local council to raise local taxes sufficiently high enough to provide relief for local people—a product of the inequality of land values in places like Jarrow compared with other parts of the country. In fact, Ellen Wilkinson, in her book, makes a direct comparison with the property taxes that were able to be raised in Westminster, a comparison that my hon. Friend the Member for Hartlepool (Mr Brash) made in his own area, so the problem persists until this day.

What the town council in Jarrow did do with the resources that it had available was always put education first because it knew, as we know, the success of our country and industry depends on the next generation of people who will build, design and operate the industries of the future. I know my hon. Friend the Member for Jarrow and Gateshead East has made a particular point during this anniversary of working to include young people in the commemorations of the Jarrow Crusade. It is vital that our young people have the opportunity to understand the histories and values of their forebears. I do hope that Elise and Imogen had a very memorable meeting with the Prime Minister at Downing Street.

It is also important that we support our young people to access work opportunities, which they were asking for, but were rejected, in 1936. With around 1 million young people not in education, employment and training, this Government will not leave an entire generation of young people behind. Our measures are helping more young people take their first step into work. Since announcing an additional £2.5 billion to create up to 500,000 opportunities to earn and learn by 2029, we have begun rolling out youth guarantees across Great Britain. The youth guarantee gateway is now available in jobcentres. We are expanding youth hubs. We have launched the £3,000 youth jobs grant and are rolling out the jobs guarantee. Youth hubs are a crucial part of our youth guarantee. They bring together the employment skills and wider support that young people need to move into work, training or education. By expanding the network to over 360 locations across the country, more young people will be able to access personalised and wraparound support in their local community.

[Jim Shannon]

I commend the Minister for his comprehensive and helpful response to the things that we have asked. He is outlining the programme, strategy and focus here in the mainland, which I certainly encourage. There are lots of good things in the Administrations in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland that we could all learn from. I know the Minister has been to Harland & Wolff in Belfast. He was keen to go; I remember him telling me he was going there. Has he had a chance to discuss strategies so that we can maybe develop them ourselves and try to work more consistently across all the nations to improve opportunities for young people, wherever they may be?

[Chris McDonald]

The hon. Member makes an important point. The solutions that will help young people get into work are understood well in local communities, because they need to respond both to the needs of that local community and the needs of local industry. There are, both in Northern Ireland and in many places around the country, excellent collaborations between industry and local colleges, particularly in Northern Ireland with the work being done around the Short Brothers aerospace location, where there are excellent opportunities for young people and close working with local further education colleges, for instance. I am sure there are lessons there that could be learned in other parts of the country, too, so I thank him for making that point.

We commissioned Alan Milburn to independently review the crisis of young people not in employment, education or training, and we will consider the findings in the interim report to continue to build our reforms. We look forward to the final recommendations being received shortly.

We remember not only the men who marched, but, as the shadow Minister said, the people who provided them with support and assistance along the way. Those working people showed solidarity, offering shelter, food and medical supplies. Just like the marchers in 1936 and all the people from around the country who supported them, this Government recognise the value of secure work, fair pay and opportunities to progress. Employment laws have not kept pace with modern working patterns. Too many workers lack the protections that they need at work, and responsible businesses face unfair competition from those willing to exploit gaps in outdated employment laws.

That is why this Government came up with our plan to make work pay, which will modernise employment rights to respond to a changing labour market and create a fairer, more secure economy for workers and business. Evidence drawn from UK and international research, alongside economic modelling, suggests that the Employment Rights Act can support a better-functioning labour market, more secure work, better job quality, improved productivity and fairer competition, and will have a positive, direct impact on economic growth.

More than 18 million employees are expected to benefit from the new protections, with lower-paid workers in sectors such as social care, hospitality and retail seeing the biggest gains. Analysis suggests that the north-east is likely to be one of the UK regions that benefits the most from the measures in the Employment Rights Act.

Many of our reforms are already making a difference for workers. Employees now have access to family-friendly rights from day one of employment, up to 1.3 million more people are eligible for statutory sick pay, and we have made it easier for workers to connect with trade unions. We also created the Fair Work Agency, bringing the enforcement functions of three predecessor bodies together so that employment rights can be enforced more effectively and efficiently. Together, our reforms ensure that economic progress is shared by the people and communities who create it.

Ninety years ago, the men of Jarrow walked to demand something fundamental: the chance to work, to contribute and to build a better future for their families. Their journey stands as a reminder not only of the consequences of economic decline, but of the resilience, determination and solidarity of working people. I share that belief in the dignity of work, as do all working-class communities. As we commemorate the Jarrow crusade, we have the responsibility both to remember their story and to learn from it. Through investment in industry, support for skills, stronger workers’ rights and renewed opportunities for young people, we will build an economy in which every community can succeed.

15:51

[Kate Osborne]

I thank the Minister for his detailed response; it will mean a lot to the descendants of the marchers and members of our community who may be watching this debate. I also thank the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) for his engagement and support, and all those who came along to my exhibition on the Jarrow crusade earlier this week.

As I leave this debate, I reflect on the legacy left behind by the brave men who marched for better. To the descendants of those who marched, to those watching at home and to the people of Jarrow, this debate belongs to you. Your voices matter today as much as those voices did in 1936. The greatest tribute we can pay to the Jarrow crusaders is not simply commemorating their march, but continuing their fight for decent work, dignity, solidarity and a fairer future, for our community and every community.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House has considered the legacy of the Jarrow Crusade on the 90th anniversary.

15:53

Sitting adjourned.