House of Commons
Oral Answers to Questions
(1 day, 6 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Shivani Raja (Leicester East) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Anna McMorrin)
I thank NHS staff and care workers for their tireless work, but I also understand the frustration felt by people in Wales that waiting lists are going up under the Plaid Cymru Government. Just last week the Chancellor announced an additional £450 million for the Welsh Government to deliver public services. That is on top of the largest spending review settlement since devolution. I hope that the Welsh Government use this funding wisely to improve NHS services and reduce waiting lists.
Shivani Raja
Welsh Government figures show that, as of March 2025, there were more than 30,000 Welsh people waiting for NHS treatment in England, which is almost three times the number in 2011. What discussions has the Secretary of State had with the Welsh Government about managing this cross-border demand, reducing waiting times in Wales and ensuring that services in England have the capacity to meet the needs of patients on both sides of the border?
Anna McMorrin
Wales is the home of the NHS, and I am proud of the way that Welsh Labour has always been its fiercest defender, even in the face of Tory austerity. Welsh Labour brought those waiting lists down for 10 consecutive months before the last election. They are now rising under the Plaid Cymru Government, and we need to see clear action from the Welsh Government to bring them down. We regularly have discussions on how we can do that.
Jessica Morden (Newport East) (Lab)
As the Minister has just said, NHS waiting lists have soared to a 10-month high since Plaid Cymru’s election, despite the progress that was being made as they came down under Welsh Labour. Will the Minister join me in urging Plaid to make cutting waiting lists a priority, especially as we enter these winter months, when NHS pressures are at their greatest?
Anna McMorrin
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Waiting lists are going up under Plaid Cymru after the Welsh Labour Government brought them down for 10 months straight. Welsh Labour has always prioritised the NHS, including through free prescriptions, mental health support via 111, free car parking in hospitals, women’s health hubs and specialist mental health support in every school. Those were Welsh Labour decisions based on Welsh Labour values, and I urge the Plaid Cymru Government to honour them, perhaps by using the £450 million in additional funding that this UK Labour Government announced at the Budget just last week.
Llinos Medi (Ynys Môn) (PC)
The Secretary of State for Wales (Stephen Kinnock)
This was a proudly Labour Budget that provides people in Wales with breathing space for today and hope for tomorrow. We are helping Welsh families with the cost of living by extending 0% VAT on electricity bills, getting rid of gas standing charges and removing the 4% tariff on heating oil to support 105,000 households in Wales.
Llinos Medi
The autumn Budget will deliver real-terms cuts to Welsh public services, because it fails to “compensate for higher inflation.” Those are not my words, but those of Cardiff University, which says that Wales now faces “difficult choices”, including cuts to local authorities such as mine on Ynys Môn. Can the Secretary of State explain why this UK Labour Government are imposing cuts on Welsh public services?
Stephen Kinnock
I genuinely do not know where Plaid Cymru is getting these numbers from. This Budget provides the Welsh Government with an additional £450 million for public services, meaning that the Welsh Government settlement continues to grow in real terms over the spending review period. In addition, the UK Government are providing a £6.5 billion increase in Welsh Government spending power as a result of changes to the fiscal framework, additional funding through the Barnett formula and the largest settlement in the history of devolution. This generational increase in 2025 was the largest settlement for Wales since devolution began in the late 1990s.
Ruth Jones (Newport West and Islwyn) (Lab)
I greatly welcome the Chancellor’s announcement of a further £30 million for the delivery of a new station at Cardiff Parkway, in a constituency that neighbours mine. Does the Secretary of State agree that this investment stands in stark contrast to the approach of the Plaid minority Government at Cardiff Bay, who are threatening to close numerous junctions of the M4, worsening air and noise pollution for my constituents?
Stephen Kinnock
I share my hon. Friend’s frustration. The Welsh Government must recognise that only a relief road will address the needs of the people, the economy and the environment of south-east Wales. What local people do not need is disruption and junction closures. I was pleased to see the Senedd support Welsh Labour’s motion to rule out closures and to begin work on an appropriate relief road for the M4, and I urge Plaid Cymru to work with Newport council and to reconsider its position.
Mims Davies (East Grinstead and Uckfield) (Con)
It was a damp squib Budget that largely forgot Wales. It had nothing on upgrading the A55 or the M4 bypass. The previous Welsh Government were offered the finance by the previous Conservative Government to unclog the Brynglas tunnels, but the Minister’s Labour Senedd colleagues—as we have heard—had the hide last month to call for an M4 relief road, despite being in power for 27 years. Can the Secretary of State explain why Labour is now making calls on projects it could and should have delivered when in power, or do they prefer to be the ones shouting from the hard shoulder?
Stephen Kinnock
I am taken aback by the brass neck of the Conservatives, after 14 years of neglect and incompetence, the failure to fund rail, and the failure to fix so many of the problems that they caused. I am very pleased that the Welsh Labour motion in the Senedd was approved, and we call on the Plaid Cymru Welsh Government to change tack, reconsider and do the right thing for the people of Wales.
Mims Davies
That is a screeching U-turn for us all to see. As we have heard today, matters could go from bad to horrendous for M4 drivers. With the separatist Plaid Cymru Welsh Government now threatening to close multiple junctions, the Wales Office has sat on its hands. Compare that to my Conservative colleagues and me, who scrapped the Severn bridge tolls. Where is the action? Where is the pushback? After this failure, can the Secretary of State tell us why drivers and businesses should have any confidence that the Labour Government will stand up to Plaid for them?
Stephen Kinnock
The hon. Lady talked about the Budget. I remind her of what the Budget does for drivers: it extends the temporary 5p per litre fuel duty cut for a further six months; it makes permanent the 55p per mile tax-free mileage rate for the first 10,000 business miles, which will save a worker travelling 6,000 business miles at least £120 a year in tax from 2027-28; and it extends the 3.7p cut to red diesel duty to 1 July 2027. I respectfully suggest to the hon. Lady that she has another look at the Budget and comes back when she has got her facts right.
David Chadwick (Brecon, Radnor and Cwm Tawe) (LD)
Communities across Wales are desperate to see economic growth and new jobs, and that is why the Welsh Liberal Democrats believe that Wales needs more powers, including powers over borrowing, full powers over rail infrastructure and full powers over the Crown estate. Does the Secretary of State agree and, if so, will Wales get more powers during this Parliament?
Stephen Kinnock
I wish the hon. Gentleman luck in the forthcoming leadership election—I believe he is standing against himself, so I am sure he will have a positive outcome. He mentioned rail, and I am delighted that we have secured at least £445 million to progress rail projects across Wales, including £30 million for Cardiff Parkway, which is front-loaded to support delivery of Welsh priorities during the spending review period. I am sure that he and his party will join me in welcoming those measures.
Liz Saville Roberts (Dwyfor Meirionnydd) (PC)
The Prime Minister promised to end 40 years of Thatcherite ideology, but last week’s Budget was a whimper, not a reset. A poll since the Budget found that 60% of voters believe that it merely tinkers around the edges, and in Wales we can see why—real-terms cuts loom for public services, we see a shrinking capital budget and there is no meaningful movement on rail funding. Does the Secretary of State understand why so many people in Wales feel that the Budget falls so far short of the promises talked up by his Government?
Stephen Kinnock
I thank the right hon. Lady for that question, but again I am not sure that those on the Opposition Benches are clear about what the Budget will deliver. In addition to all the breathing space measures, which are making a clear difference to the cost of living, we have £30 million on Cardiff Parkway railway station, £2.5 million on new funding for M-Sparc, £11 million for the Aberavon bridge and £20 million to support reindustrialisation in AI sectors, and that is on top of all the work we are doing on nuclear power at Wylfa and revitalising the Welsh steel industry. With all due respect, she too should have another look at the Budget and come back when she has got her facts straight.
Liz Saville Roberts
The Secretary of State did not mention the £14 billion that has been promised, or the £300 million for Leeds railway station.
There are threats of cuts everywhere. The BBC has announced £9 million of cuts at BBC Cymru Wales, including 58 job losses. Twenty hours of programming, as well as radio shows such as “Dros Ginio” and “Ar y Marc”, will be axed, and Welsh production companies are raising the alarm about the impact of fewer commissions. We have had to fight hard for Welsh-language broadcasting. What is the Secretary of State doing, as Wales’s supposed man in the Cabinet, to protect jobs and safeguard our national media?
Stephen Kinnock
I am proud to be a strong voice for Wales in the Cabinet. Frankly, I find it shocking that those on the Opposition Benches think that Wales should not have a strong voice in the Cabinet. We are ready to work closely with the Welsh Government to ensure that our broadcasting industry, which we are very proud of, continues to go from strength to strength. I look forward to working with the right hon. Lady and other colleagues to achieve that objective.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
Steve Witherden (Montgomeryshire and Glyndŵr) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Wales (Stephen Kinnock)
The UK Government are committed to driving economic growth in Wales. We are investing £2.6 billion to bring nuclear power back to Wylfa, £500 million to secure the future of Welsh steel, and £50 million to support defence jobs across Wales.
Jim Shannon
I thank the Secretary of State for his response. He and I both know that when it comes to driving economic growth, whether it is in Wales or Northern Ireland, we are always better together. Given that both Wales and Northern Ireland face similar challenges with rural economic development and in supporting our vital small business sectors, what specific lessons has the Department shared with the Northern Ireland Office and the devolved Executive to ensure that targeted regional growth strategies work collectively to strengthen the entire United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland?
Stephen Kinnock
The hon. Gentleman mentions rural economic development. We are extending the 3.7p cut to red diesel to July 2027, and suspending tariffs on fertiliser. We are removing the 4% tariff on heating oil, which will support 105,000 Welsh households, and I am sure that many of his constituents will also benefit. We had productive talks at the National Economic Council in Glasgow. Of course, it was unfortunate that the Northern Irish Government were not represented in those talks, but we will certainly continue to work closely with the hon. Gentleman and others to ensure strong co-operation and collaboration across all the nations that make up our United Kingdom.
Steve Witherden
The Access for All programme is 20 years old this year, yet much work is to be done on making travel easier for rail passengers with mobility constraints. For example, the northbound platform at Ruabon station, in my constituency, still has no step-free access and is in desperate need of a ramp or, better yet, a lift. What steps is the Department taking to improve accessibility at Welsh railway stations?
Stephen Kinnock
I enjoyed meeting my hon. Friend last week, when we discussed Ruabon station. My officials have since raised this project with Network Rail. I am very pleased to confirm that the UK Government have announced Ruabon as one of the 23 stations across Great Britain that have been selected to progress to the next stage of the Access for All programme. I look forward to further engagement with my hon. Friend on this hugely important project, which I believe includes the installation of what is known in the trade as a jack-in-the-box lift.
Carolyn Harris (Neath and Swansea East) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Anna McMorrin)
This Government are delivering the biggest sustained increase in defence spending since the cold war by investing £298 billion over the next four years to strengthen our national security and keep us safe. Wales is well placed to benefit from this investment, with 20,000 defence jobs already in Wales. Every pound that we invest in defence should be judged by what it does. We want to ensure that all investment brings jobs and skills, and strengthens our national security.
Carolyn Harris
It is disappointing to see the Plaid Welsh Government decide to delay defence investment decisions in Wales, including on DARC—the deep space advanced radar capability—in Pembrokeshire. Welsh Labour will always take the defence of Wales seriously, even if Plaid will not. Can the Minister update me on the Welsh Government’s commitment to establishing defence technical excellence colleges in Wales, so we can get on with training up the next generation of defence experts?
Anna McMorrin
My hon. Friend is absolutely right that Labour will always put the defence and security of the Welsh people first. That is why we announced last week that, if the Welsh Government continue to drag their feet on committing to a Wales defence technical excellence college, the UK Government stand ready to step in where Plaid will not. With the Scottish Government already making clear their commitment to DTECs in Scotland, I strongly urge the Welsh Plaid Cymru Government to come to the table and work with us, so that we can protect our security and create the jobs of the future.
Ben Obese-Jecty (Huntingdon) (Con)
The Ajax programme at the General Dynamics land systems factory is obviously a huge employer in Merthyr Tydfil, but with the Government unable to get Ajax back on track and no guarantee of any defence exports, all work at the factory is due to stop after the vehicles have been upgraded to capability drop 4. What are the Government doing to ensure that the jobs at that factory remain beyond the completion of the work on the Ajax programme?
Anna McMorrin
The hon. Member makes a very good point. General Dynamics is a very important company, and I have had many conversations with it about its investment and the continuation of the Ajax programme. We know about the challenges that the programme has encountered, but considerable efforts have been made to resolve them and drive forward the programme. That organisation invests hugely in the local community, delivering high-quality jobs, and part of our £50 million defence growth deal is to ensure that this will continue well into the future.
Charlie Dewhirst (Bridlington and The Wolds) (Con)
The Welsh defence industry supports 20,000 jobs and is absolutely vital to the national security of the United Kingdom, yet defence firms face growing uncertainty over the UK Government’s failure to set out a detailed plan to meet the 3% of GDP target on defence spending and Plaid Cymru’s proposed defence ethical investment framework in Wales, which are both creating serious concern for businesses looking to invest, expand and protect jobs. Therefore, what discussions has the Minister had with defence companies about these concerns, and what is she doing to give the industry the certainty it desperately needs?
Anna McMorrin
I thank the hon. Member for his question, but I think he may have a short memory. It was his Government who cut the Army to its smallest size since Napoleonic times and short-changed the equipment plan by £17 billion. In stark contrast, this Chancellor announced a £298 billion investment in defence over the next four years. We are working at pace to deliver the development growth deal across the country, with high-quality jobs and investment across Wales. I am urging the Plaid Cymru Government to stop at nothing, to work with us and to ensure that we deliver security for the people of Wales and those high-quality jobs.
Mr Alex Barros-Curtis (Cardiff West) (Lab)
The Secretary of State for Wales (Stephen Kinnock)
Whether it is through Wales’s role in bolstering the UK’s defence and steel production, or leading the way in industries such as compound semiconductors and the life sciences, our Union of nations is hugely strengthened by Wales. We cannot put a ceiling on the awesome talent and ambition of the Welsh people, and I simply cannot understand why Plaid Cymru is hellbent on doing so.
Mr Barros-Curtis
I was shocked to see the front page of the Western Mail last week, which said:
“Free milk scheme for pupils could be scrapped”.
I thought we had gone back in time to the infamous milk snatcher, Margaret Thatcher, but no, it was the modern-day Plaid Cymru Welsh Government. Does the Secretary of State agree with me that scrapping free school milk would be a backward step, and will he commit to working with Cabinet colleagues to ensure that the Union means more opportunities for our children in Wales, not fewer?
Stephen Kinnock
Well, I have to say that when Plaid won in May, I did not have Thatcherism 2.0 on my bingo card. First, Plaid dragged its feet on additional learning needs funding; then it refused to commit to Flying Start; and now it may be targeting free school milk. My hon. Friend is right: the Plaid Welsh Government should be supporting children and families, just as this UK Labour Government have by scrapping the two-child cap, which will be hugely beneficial for nearly 70,000 Welsh children.
Ann Davies (Caerfyrddin) (PC)
One would hope that any Union would be a Union of equals, in which equal partners listen to each other with mutual respect. May I respectfully ask the Secretary of State to check his facts, as he has asked Plaid Members to check theirs? Can he confirm that the UK Government have listened to the Welsh Government on the Cynnal child payment pilot? Will he ensure that His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs will not count this payment as income, so that families do not lose out on the other benefit support that they need?
Stephen Kinnock
We have a shared priority with devolved Governments to tackle child poverty, so that no child living in poverty in the UK is left behind. Child poverty is a significant challenge, and reducing it over the next 10 years will require ongoing commitment and collaboration, particularly through the implementation phase. We are open to exploring the Welsh Government’s Cynnal pilot and we will continue to engage with them on the details.
John Cooper (Dumfries and Galloway) (Con)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Anna McMorrin)
I have regular discussions with the Welsh Government on defence and many other matters. We are fully funding the £15 billion defence investment plan, strengthening our armed forces, investing in cutting-edge technology and creating nearly 60,000 additional industry jobs across the UK. Continued uncertainty around the Welsh Government’s approach to defence, and delays to important projects such as DARC—Deep Space Advanced Radar Capability—risk deterring investment and jobs from Wales, as well as risking our national security.
John Cooper
Plaid, the SNP and Sinn Féin: the separatist cabal trying to break up Britain, with little regard for UK defence. In Scotland, we already have a hostile environment for our critical defence industry. What can the Secretary of State do in Wales to prevent the same fate befalling key workers there?
Anna McMorrin
This is absolutely such a critical industry and topic for our country to work on together as a strong United Kingdom. The dither and delay from the Plaid Welsh Government is undermining our Welsh defence sector. It is having a very real impact on jobs, investment and opportunities, and our communities deserve better. I once again urge the Plaid Welsh Government to work with us and stop the delay.
Nick Thomas-Symonds (Torfaen) (Lab)
The deployment of military personnel to deal with wildfires in Wales was very important this summer. Does the Minister agree that, now that UK and Welsh Government summits have taken place and there is additional money in the Welsh budget, we need a plan on wildfire prevention and resilience ahead of next summer?
Anna McMorrin
I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend for his work with his community, and the commoners and firefighters in his constituency. I also pay tribute to all our firefighters and military for their role in fighting the wildfires this summer. The Welsh and UK Governments held summits last month and set out a route forward, including the UK Government equipping RAF helicopters to fight fires in remote areas. That is absolutely essential. The Welsh Government are looking to bring in international expertise. This is yet another example of the importance and power of cross-border collaboration.
Dr Luke Evans (Hinckley and Bosworth) (Con)
The Secretary of State for Wales (Stephen Kinnock)
Cross-border travel is crucial to unlocking economic growth and employment opportunities. We are investing at least £445 million in Welsh rail, including in the Burns stations in South Wales, to improve cross-border connectivity and to help tackle congestion on the M4, a vital economic link between Wales and England. It is therefore deeply disappointing that the Welsh Government have chosen not to proceed with the M4 relief road.
Dr Evans
One of the biggest straitjackets on economic growth east to west is the “most-bashed bridge in Britain” on the A5 in my patch: the Watling Street bridge. There are plans to lower the road underneath it, but they seem to have stalled. Will the Minister speak with the Transport Secretary to see what can be done to get those plans unstuck, so that the road can be lowered and we can get Britain moving again?
Stephen Kinnock
The A5 is a hugely important cross-border artery, so it is vital to ensure that traffic can flow smoothly. If the hon. Gentleman would care to write to me on the subject, I would be happy to follow up with officials and the Secretary of State for Transport.
Catherine Fookes (Monmouthshire) (Lab)
I was very surprised last week to hear the Plaid Cymru Transport Minister calling rail funding of £445 million from the UK Government an “insult”. Does the Minister agree that squabbling about cross-border transport gets us nowhere, and that the Welsh and UK Governments must work together to get spades in the ground for the Magor and Undy Walkway station?
Stephen Kinnock
The UK Government are making a very substantial contribution. It is vital that we invest in rail, and my hon. Friend is right that we now have to ensure that we get those spades in the ground. We are ready to roll up our sleeves and work closely with the Welsh Government, Transport for Wales, Network Rail and others to ensure that we get those projects up and running as rapidly as possible.
Speaker’s Statement
(1 day, 6 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate
Mr Speaker
Before we come to Prime Minister’s questions, I extend a warm welcome to the President of the National Assembly of Côte d'Ivoire and his delegation, who are with us in the Public Gallery. For her first outing in this role, I call the First Secretary of State.
Oral Answers to Questions
(1 day, 6 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Matthew Patrick (Wirral West) (Lab)
The First Secretary of State (Louise Haigh)
I have been asked to respond on behalf of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, who is accompanying His Majesty the King at the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting in Antigua. This weekend, the whole country will fall silent to mark Remembrance Sunday. We pay tribute to the men and women who have served, and all those who made the ultimate sacrifice in defence of our values and freedoms. I wish a joyful and peaceful Diwali to everyone who will be celebrating. This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in this House, I will have further such meetings later today.
Matthew Patrick
Giving people opportunity is the mission of our party, but for young people on the Wirral, Brexit means that they have been denied many of the opportunities that their parents enjoyed, such as the right to work, study or live anywhere across Europe. The progress being made on a sanitary and phytosanitary deal gives me real confidence and hope that we can strike a good deal with the European Union in our national interests. Can the Government go further, strike a deal for young people, and restore to them the opportunities that Brexit took away?
Louise Haigh
My hon. Friend is absolutely right that the Brexit deal we inherited damaged our economy, weakened our ability to control immigration and took opportunities away from young people. Negotiations are ongoing, but we know that an SPS deal could add billions to our economy, cutting costs for exporters, helping supermarkets offer better prices, and supporting British farmers. We are working with the EU to create a balanced youth experience scheme that creates opportunities for young people to live, work and study abroad. Meanwhile, the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Alex Burghart) has already said that the Conservatives would rip all that up, no matter the benefits; perhaps he would like to take this opportunity to set the record straight?
Alex Burghart (Brentwood and Ongar) (Con)
I associate myself with the comments the First Secretary of State made about Remembrance Sunday, which I look forward to marking in my constituency of Brentwood and Ongar.
This year, how much will the Government spend on working-age welfare?
Louise Haigh
Let me start by congratulating the hon. Gentleman on his elevation to deputy leader of the Conservative party. He recently said that it was now his job to tell the Leader of the Opposition when she is getting things wrong, which must make him the busiest man in Westminster. I am sure that the whole House is right behind him as he takes on such an important job. This Government are committed to bringing the benefits bill down and dealing with the mess left behind by the previous Tory Government, on whose watch welfare rose by £88 billion in a decade.
Alex Burghart
I think it is very telling that the right hon. Lady does not want to tell us the answer to that question. The answer is £183 billion. That is the highest figure ever. It is higher than anything during covid; it is higher than spending on defence, schools and policing combined. It is nearly £10,000 for every working household in this country. Will the Government commit to bringing that bill down in this Parliament?
Louise Haigh
The Government have been clear: the benefit bill will come down, and we are already taking steps to ensure that. We have rebalanced universal credit, increased face-to-face assessments, introduced a right to try work for disabled people, and introduced the youth guarantee for unemployed youth. Under previous Tory Governments—on the hon. Gentleman’s watch—the welfare bill soared by £88 billion. Nearly 3 million people were written off, with 1 million young people not in employment, education or training. That is the legacy of the previous Tory Administration. This Government are committed to tackling all of it.
Alex Burghart
The right hon. Lady has missed the fact that the bill is higher now than it has ever been. The Government are in a complete mess on this. On Thursday morning, the Chancellor went on the BBC and was asked whether there will be cuts in welfare before the next election. He said that there will be. Cue panic in Downing Street. The Prime Minister was sent out to clarify things. He said that the welfare bill needs to come down, but that this cannot be done by cutting the welfare bill. Then, at teatime, the Chancellor conceded defeat and said,
“It’s not correct to say that we are going to bring this welfare bill down”.
Will the First Secretary of State be clear: why is Labour not going to bring the welfare bill down during this Parliament?
Louise Haigh
The hon. Gentleman can continue reading out his questions, but he should listen to the answers. I have repeatedly said that the benefit bill will come down, and have set out the steps that this Labour Government are already taking to bring it down. The Milburn report will report shortly, as will the Timms review. Let me set out what further choices this Labour Government are making. Last night, the Opposition walked through the Lobby to vote against every change that this Budget will deliver. [Interruption.] They cheer, but they voted against a council tax cut for 20 million households. They voted against taking VAT off electricity bills. They voted against taking 70,000 small businesses out of business rates, and they voted against a tax on banks to fund it all. Perhaps he would like to explain why he did so now.
Alex Burghart
The right hon. Lady seems to have missed out the bit where the Resolution Foundation said that this Budget would be “catastrophic” for living standards, and the bit where the Office for Budget Responsibility said that the Budget would risk 215,000 jobs through tax rises. We know that Labour cannot bring down welfare in the next three years. It has been briefed, however, that the Prime Minister is preparing a 10-year plan. I am old enough to remember Keir Starmer’s 10-year plan, because it was six months ago. This is the only political party in history to have two 10-year plans in 10 months. Given that the Labour party is experimenting with planning, can it commit to reducing this record welfare bill—the highest welfare bill ever—in its 10-year plan?
Louise Haigh
The hon. Gentleman can ask me the same question four or five times; I will keep answering the same way. We are taking steps already to bring the welfare bill down, and we will take further steps. We have committed to legislating. Every week, the Conservatives bring here the same problems, and the same messes that we inherited from them—on welfare, defence, immigration and the economy. This Labour Government are committed to tackling it all. No matter what he brings, we are taking steps to deliver on all of it.
Alex Burghart
I am sure that the right hon. Lady was paying attention at the Budget, and to the figures that were published. Welfare spending will go up in every single year of this Parliament. I remember the Milburn review—a review so important that it was delayed until after the Budget. The Government are not going to fix welfare, and we know why, because the welfare Secretary told us. He said that every meeting he had with Labour MPs was about asking, “Who can we tax to pay for benefits?” It is very likely that the right hon. Lady was one of those MPs. We all remember that she led the rebellion against Keir Starmer’s very modest welfare policies. If the Government cannot reduce the welfare bill because of their Back Benchers and Front Benchers, can they at least promise that they will not put up taxes to cover these ever-increasing costs?
Louise Haigh
We have repeatedly been clear that we cannot afford to pay for failure and must invest in success. That is how we will bring the welfare bill down. We will make support more conditional on taking up opportunities, and ensure that young people get the help that they need earlier. We are tackling the long-term drivers of welfare spending, including high housing costs, and we will do all this in a Labour way.
The hon. Gentleman told a gathering of Conservative party members that they should keep apologising for the many things that they got wrong in government, but I am not sure that his colleagues got the memo. The Leader of the Opposition claimed that she was not in the Cabinet when they made mistakes on migration, but she was there at the peak of the Boriswave. The shadow Home Secretary claimed that he was not responsible for immigration policy when he was a Home Office Minister, and the shadow Chancellor still does not want blame for the mini-Budget, which was written when he was in the Treasury. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would like to take this opportunity to apologise on behalf of himself and his colleagues.
Alex Burghart
We all know what the Labour way is: more tax, more welfare and more borrowing. There is no commitment to reducing welfare, and no promise not to put up tax. The Government know what needs to be done, but they do not have the bottle to do it. They are too scared to cut spending and too weak to do the right thing. They are too busy putting off until tomorrow what needs to be done today, and everyone else is paying the price—the millions of people on welfare, and the millions of people picking up the bill. If Labour does not want to do the right thing, why does it not just get out of the way?
Mr Speaker
Order. Mr Rankin, we had a little eye contact earlier. I do not think that it looks good to try to shout down a woman. I call the First Secretary of State.
Louise Haigh
I know that the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar regards himself as the Tories’ resident historian. In fact, he once published a paper titled “Profile of a Doomed Elite”. I am sure that the House will be as surprised as I was to learn that it was not a study of the prospects of the current shadow Cabinet.
As a student of history, the hon. Gentleman will be well aware that few Governments have delivered the scale and speed of change that this Administration have in our first 100 days; we are cutting business rates for 70,000 businesses, cutting tax for entrepreneurs, cutting VAT from electricity bills to helping 20 million households with energy bills, scrapping standing charges, capping bus fares, investing in our high streets, extending parental pay and tackling rough sleeping. He does not seem impressed. Perhaps that is because the only Government who had more of an impact in a shorter space of time was the one he served under: the one led by Liz Truss.
Lorraine Beavers (Blackpool North and Fleetwood) (Lab)
Louise Haigh
I am very happy to congratulate Fleetwood Town with my hon. Friend. As a Barnsley fan, we live for those David versus Goliath moments.
We published the UK’s first ever plan to better protect people and our environment from forever chemicals earlier this year. Just this week, the UK Health and Security Agency launched its first study into the levels of forever chemicals in the population. As we continue to build the evidence, we will consider the case for any appropriate measures, including national standards to manage the risks and protect communities. The Environment Agency is supporting a thorough investigation into the Thornton-Cleveleys site and I will make sure that the DEFRA Minister of State keeps my hon. Friend updated.
Daisy Cooper (St Albans) (LD)
May I associate myself with the remarks of the First Secretary of State about Remembrance Sunday, when we will join in honouring our service personnel and their sacrifices? May I also join her in wishing a happy Diwali to all those who celebrate?
American voters have rejected Trump’s warmongering and the economic chaos that it has caused, unlike the Conservatives and Reform who cheered on Trump’s illegal war. Trump has renewed his threat of strikes on Iran—strikes that would be devastating for security in the region and devastating for the cost of living in the UK. Will the Government stand together with our reliable allies and send a clear message to Trump and Netanyahu that there must be no more strikes?
Louise Haigh
The US is one of our most important allies and our priority, absolutely, is de-escalation. The hon. Lady is absolutely right that the war in the middle east has been catastrophic for the cost of living crisis here at home, and the parties opposite, including the Tories and Reform, should consider carefully their judgment in calling for us to jump so readily into it.
Daisy Cooper
I am grateful for the unequivocal response on that. The First Secretary has our backing in calling for de-escalation.
As well as the economic turmoil, the American people have also sent a message that they are sick of Trump’s scandals, from his blatant corruption to his close friendship with Epstein and most recently, emerging from the Epstein files, an allegation of rape. Will the First Secretary of State join me in saying that in this House, we will not tolerate powerful men who abuse their position against women in this Parliament or any other? Will the Government also commit to assisting any and all inquiries that the new Democratic Congress may launch?
Louise Haigh
The hon. Lady raises an incredibly important point about the Epstein files and everything that they revealed. She is right to highlight the importance, always, of challenging power and standing on behalf of vulnerable victims.
Oliver Ryan (Burnley) (Lab/Co-op)
Louise Haigh
I vividly remember visiting the station with my hon. Friend. He has been a strong campaigner on this and I know just how important it is for his constituents. We have awarded over £640 million to the Lancashire combined county authority for its local priorities, which could help deliver schemes such as this one. I know that the Rail Minister will be happy to meet my hon. Friend to discuss the campaign.
Gavin Robinson (Belfast East) (DUP)
Political stability in Northern Ireland should never, and certainly cannot now, be taken for granted. A fundamental principle in our democracy is that Ministers who take up office uphold the rule of law and support the police, the courts and our rule of law, yet the lawless First Minister of Northern Ireland and three of her Ministers have shredded their pledge and, with it, the responsibility that comes with office.
Do the First Secretary of State and our Labour Government believe in the rule of law and believe that where one errs it should not be that all are punished, that lawmakers cannot be lawbreakers, and that there therefore needs to be an amendment to the Northern Ireland Act 1998 to ensure that, in circumstances such as these, the punishment applies to those who stepped outside all respected norms and their pledge of office?
Louise Haigh
The right hon. Gentleman will understand that I am not going to comment on a live police investigation. The major problem facing Northern Ireland right now is, as he will agree, the absence of a budget. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland is looking at how we can ensure that there is more political and financial accountability, and he will continue engaging with all Northern Ireland parties about how we move forward. Ultimately, we want calm heads to prevail and power sharing to succeed, and we want to enhance the resilience of the political institutions in Northern Ireland. We are willing to work with all parties on that, and I know that the right hon. Gentleman will play his full part in getting a budget agreed.
Fred Thomas (Plymouth Moor View) (Lab)
Louise Haigh
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The UK can be a world leader in this industry, which is why our space strategy set out over £7.8 billion of investment to strengthen our national security and resilience. I can assure him that our decisions will always prioritise economic growth and jobs here in the UK and the enhancing of our sovereign capabilities, and I am sure that my hon. Friend the Space Minister will be very happy to meet him to discuss this.
Chris Coghlan (Dorking and Horley) (LD)
Louise Haigh
I am sure the whole House’s thoughts are with Eivie and her friend’s families and all who loved them. This is a tragic case, and one that absolutely highlights the importance of reforming SEND—I know the whole House is behind that—as we look to tackle the failures in this system that have been an issue for many years. My right hon. Friend the Education Secretary is leading the work to strengthen that system so that families do not have to fight for support, and education, health and care plans will remain part of the system. Parents will continue to be involved in decisions about their children’s support, and the tribunal will remain a key legal backstop. My right hon. Friend is more than happy to meet the hon. Gentleman to discuss this issue and the very sad case he raises.
Dr Peter Prinsley (Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket) (Lab)
Louise Haigh
I am very grateful for that conditional invitation. We absolutely recognise the potential benefits that upgrades to Haughley junction could deliver for passengers and freight alike and that these must be delivered alongside rail upgrades in the Ely area. As my hon. Friend knows, both projects were cancelled by the previous Government in 2021, but I am pleased to confirm that both are now being considered for future funding, and I know the Transport Secretary will be happy to meet him to hear his case.
Bradley Thomas (Bromsgrove) (Con)
Louise Haigh
The hon. Gentleman raises an excellent example of the kind of people this Government are behind and trying to help. Working people are the millions of people who put in every day and do not get back what they deserve, people who do not have savings they can dip into and pay their way out of problems, and people who rely on good public services. Those are the people who this Labour Government are delivering for and who the Budget served last week.
Connor Naismith (Crewe and Nantwich) (Lab)
Louise Haigh
I congratulate my hon. Friend on campaigning on this important area and highlighting some of our most vulnerable constituents. I absolutely agree that victims and survivors of domestic abuse deserve proper and timely legal support. In recognition that individuals might not be able to access certain assets or funds, we have already updated legislation to improve the availability of legal aid for survivors of domestic abuse, which includes ensuring that £100,000 of the value of a home will not be considered in the legal aid means test. However, we will always work to ensure that victims and survivors have the support they need, and Ministers will be happy to hear any further proposals.
David Chadwick (Brecon, Radnor and Cwm Tawe) (LD)
Louise Haigh
I am happy to take that case away and raise it with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs.
Andrew Lewin (Welwyn Hatfield) (Lab)
Louise Haigh
I thank my hon. Friend. At the Budget, we made clear our commitment to creating good growth in every postcode, driving regeneration in every part of Britain. That commitment was backed by £80 million of new funding for the local renewal fund to support projects that create jobs, invest in local economic regeneration and boost growth. His proposal is a very good fit for that funding, and I will ensure he meets the relevant Minister to discuss.
Bobby Dean (Carshalton and Wallington) (LD)
Louise Haigh
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising this important issue. Ofcom recently introduced a draft advertising code under the Online Safety Act 2023 that, when implemented, will require major tech platforms to take robust action on online scams. Non-compliance could lead to fines of up to 10% of global revenue. We believe it is for big tech platforms to tackle those issues and, where they are failing, we will not shy away from taking firm action.
John Grady (Glasgow East) (Lab)
Louise Haigh
My hon. Friend is absolutely right to raise this issue. There is no place for hatred and violence of any kind in our society, whether on our streets or online. Our action includes investing in stronger protective security for faith communities, using the recommendations of the Bell review to tackle antisemitism in schools and universities, and delivering our social cohesion plan. For the first time, this Government have chaired a National Security Council on tackling antisemitism, to demonstrate our commitment to rooting out that evil. We will always be happy to work with Governments across the UK, including in Scotland, to share best practice, because we all have a role to play in strengthening our society.
Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD)
Louise Haigh
Cuts made over the previous decade severely impacted the most deprived communities, and we inherited an outdated, unfair funding system that no longer reflected where pressures are greatest. The final settlement for Richmond council makes available more than £223 million, but I will ensure that the relevant Minister meets the hon. Lady to discuss how we take this matter forward.
Joe Powell (Kensington and Bayswater) (Lab)
Louise Haigh
I begin by wishing my hon. Friend a very happy birthday—I am sure there is nowhere he would rather be celebrating.
My hon. Friend is right to highlight that under the Conservatives, his constituents were let down by unfunded spending commitments that were never deliverable. We have reset the programme and are investing in our NHS, delivering more appointments and lowering wait times—his local elective waiting list is down by almost 27,000. We are working closely with trusts to accelerate progress wherever possible, and a Health Minister will be happy to meet him to discuss his innovative financing proposals.
Helen Maguire (Epsom and Ewell) (LD)
Louise Haigh
The hon. Lady is absolutely right to raise those critical issues and I absolutely understand the concerns over the services at St Helier. I know that the Minister for Secondary Care discussed these issues with MPs earlier this week. We have allocated £5 million to fund critical repairs at the hospital. We are keen that as many women’s health services as possible remain there while the essential work is carried out. The trust is committed to taking a decision on plans for the maternity and women’s unit in December. I know that the Minister would be happy to meet the hon. Lady to discuss next steps and how we will address these really important issues.
Mrs Sharon Hodgson (Washington and Gateshead South) (Lab)
Today I met Braelyn Hollensbe, along with her mum. At 16, she was given just three months to live because of a brain tumour. Braelyn travelled to the UK for cutting-edge treatment. She is now 19, with scans showing no evidence of disease, and she is in the Gallery with her family today, thanks to our NHS. The drug DCVax-L is manufactured here in the UK. It is the first treatment in decades that has been shown to extend survival in recurrent glioblastoma patients, yet it is available to only a tiny number of patients on a compassionate use basis. Will the First Secretary join me in welcoming Braelyn, congratulate the NHS on playing a role in helping to develop this treatment, and agree that we should help to get it into widespread use to save more lives?
Louise Haigh
I congratulate my hon. Friend on raising this incredibly important point, and of course I welcome Braelyn and her family today. I will ensure that the Health Secretary looks at this issue urgently. I know that the Prime Minister has taken a personal interest in it and will want to ensure that action is taken as soon as possible.
Dr Luke Evans (Hinckley and Bosworth) (Con)
Will the First Secretary confirm that it is still Labour Government policy that employers are not working people?
Louise Haigh
I answered that question earlier in the session. Rather than take the Whip’s question, perhaps the hon. Gentleman could confirm why the Conservatives voted last night against every measure in the Budget that will help his constituents.
Irene Campbell (North Ayrshire and Arran) (Lab)
In my constituency, the coastal towns of Largs and Saltcoats were badly flooded by Storm Boelo, with much damage caused to local businesses, as well as damage to constituents’ houses and gardens. Does the First Secretary agree with me that to avoid that happening again, there has to be joined-up working with the Scottish Government and all relevant authorities and agencies to ensure that our vulnerable coastal towns and communities have coastal defence preparedness plans in place?
Louise Haigh
I know that this is an issue my hon. Friend has been raising, and I met her yesterday to discuss this very issue. Flooding is devolved to the Scottish Government, but we have set up a floods resilience taskforce to ensure that we can work across borders, share best practice and address exactly the issues she raises.
Liz Jarvis (Eastleigh) (LD)
On Saturday night, five teenagers in my constituency were stabbed while at a party. I would like to offer my thanks to the emergency services for their prompt response, and I extend my best wishes to the families, the victims and their friends. What reassurance can the First Secretary give my constituents that the Government are taking the issue of violent crime seriously and treating it as a public health emergency?
Louise Haigh
The hon. Lady is absolutely right to raise this issue, and to do so in the way that she has. I know that Members from across the House will send their thoughts and best wishes to the victims, to their families who will be incredibly worried about them and to the community at this time. We urge anybody with information to bring it forward to the police, so that any perpetrators can be brought to justice, and we remain committed to halving knife crime over the next decade. I will ensure that a Minister meets her to discuss the particular issues she raises about this crime and how we should address these issues going forward.
Gregory Stafford (Farnham and Bordon) (Con)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I wish to for ask your advice about the First Secretary of State having potentially inadvertently misled the House on two occasions during Question Time. She said that the Conservatives voted against every change in the Budget. That is not true—we voted against six specific measures. She also said quite specifically that the Conservatives voted against a council tax cut for 20 million households. We did not—we voted against increasing council tax by opposing resolution 86—
Mr Speaker
Order. When I stand up, please do me the courtesy of sitting down. Look, we cannot continue the debate. I am not responsible for the answers. What you have done, Mr Stafford, is to correct the record by putting down what you believe to be the facts. I do not want to continue a debate at this time.
Bills Presented
Energy Independence
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Secretary Miatta Fahnbulleh, supported by the Prime Minister, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Secretary Jonathan Reynolds, Secretary Angela Rayner, Secretary Dame Angela Eagle, Secretary Chris Bryant, Secretary Mr Douglas Alexander, Secretary Stephen Kinnock, Michael Shanks and Martin McCluskey, presented a Bill to make provision about the regulation of the energy sector; about energy schemes; about heat networks; about the Independent System Operator and Planner; about the North Sea Transition Authority and activities relating to petroleum; about the Mining Remediation Authority and coal-mining operations; about hydrogen power; about employment rights for offshore workers; about the energy efficiency of properties in the private rented sector; about radioactive waste; about fees relating to the assessment and certification of fuels and fireplaces; and for connected purposes.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Tuesday 10 November, and to be printed (Bill 176) with explanatory notes (Bill 176-EN).
Visitor Levy (England)
Presentation and First Reading (Standing Order No. 57)
Secretary Angela Rayner, supported by the Prime Minister, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Secretary Louise Haigh, Secretary Lisa Nandy, Jim McMahon and James Murray, presented a Bill to make provision for and in connection with the imposition, by strategic authorities, of a new local tax in respect of stays in residential accommodation.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Tuesday 10 November, and to be printed (Bill 177) with explanatory notes (Bill 177-EN).
Fashion Supply Chain (Code and Adjudicator)
(1 day, 6 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate
Liz Twist (Blaydon and Consett) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to provide for a Code of Practice to be followed by retailers of fashion clothing, footwear and accessories in their relationships with their suppliers; to set up an Adjudicator with the role of enforcing that Code of Practice and encouraging compliance with it; and for connected purposes.
The UK fashion and textile sector contributes £62 billion to our economy and supports 1.3 million jobs. From historic textile mills in Yorkshire and Lancashire to garment manufacturing in Leicester, London and the west midlands, domestic production provides skilled regional employment and industrial capability.
The majority of fashion retailers want to trade ethically, and certainly the public encourage them to do that, supporting fair wages and good conditions. However, the global garment market is heavily buyer-driven. Where a minority of companies engage in abusive practices, responsible businesses risk being undercut and small suppliers lack bargaining leverage. Without a level playing field, bad practice distorts fair competition and stops small businesses operating successfully.
We saw how completely the garment market can fail during the covid-19 pandemic. When retail stores closed in 2020, major brands selling in the UK cancelled billions of pounds-worth of confirmed orders overnight, withheld payments for garments already stitched and demanded steep discounts on shipped goods. That crisis laid bare the fundamental flaw in global garment supply chains: when unexpected costs hit, buyers dump commercial risks on to factory owners and workers, with zero accountability.
These practices have been documented for decades by organisations including the International Labour Organisation, Human Rights Watch, the Business and Human Rights Resource Centre and the Vietnam labour institute, and recent research from the Universities of Aberdeen, Nottingham and Leicester, the Tata Institute and Transform Trade shows that unfair buying habits remain routine commercial tactics across the UK, Bangladesh and India. These unfair practices, which include cancelled orders, forced price cuts, refusal to pay for goods in production and delayed invoices, caused job losses, poverty wages and unsafe working conditions for the workforce, the majority of whom are women.
In historic hubs such as Leicester, heavy buyer pressure has driven the number of clothing businesses down from 1,500 in 2017 to roughly 95 today. Behind those figures are real factory owners facing impossible terms. One UK manufacturer produced 1,000 garment samples over a single season, costing hundreds of pounds each, only for the buyer to order just 140 styles. Another suffered a sudden cancellation of 80,000 finished garments and 100,000 metres of fabric that was already paid for. Small UK factories pay up to £4,000 a year for mandatory compliance audits, only for 42% to receive zero orders after passing them.
Overseas suppliers face the exact same tactics. In India, when a factory had an order almost complete, an auditor flagged slightly insufficient lighting in one corner of the workshop, which the buying agent seized on to force down the contract price. Elsewhere, UK retailers have held shipments at destination ports to force steep retroactive discounts, ignoring daily emails from factory managers asking how to pay their staff. Buyers can drop orders at short notice or force price cuts, making low-paid workers absorb the blow through reduced hours, unpaid overtime or lay-offs.
Women make up 61% of the core garment workforce in the UK and 60% in Bangladesh. Crucially, international suppliers fall outside the jurisdiction of UK labour enforcement bodies, and relationships are governed by unilateral buyer manuals filled with automatic fines. Of 1,000 factories surveyed in Bangladesh, not one took legal action against a buyer; some 80% feared blacklisting. Few factory owners, whether in Leicester, India or Bangladesh, can afford to sue multimillion-pound brands.
This Labour Government have taken positive steps to raise standards across our economy. The Government’s review into responsible business conduct demonstrates a clear commitment to supply chain integrity. The creation of the Fair Work Agency will strengthen domestic labour enforcement, and the 60-day payment cap in the Commercial Payments Bill is a major step forward for business cash flow. We should celebrate those achievements, but to complete the picture and protect ethical businesses, we must go further where standards fall lower. Enforcing labour laws against factory owners cannot address financial pressures when a retailer forces a supplier to sell below production cost. Transparency reporting does not stop daily commercial abuses such as forced discounts or sudden cancellations. Capping payment terms at 60 days helps UK payment schedules, but it does not reach international supply chains or protect against cancelled contracts. Advising small suppliers to pursue litigation fails to recognise commercial reality, as no small business can afford to sue the buyer that it depends on for survival.
We need to regulate buyer behaviour directly through a statutory garment trading adjudicator across the UK market, bringing domestic and foreign retailers selling in the UK into scope. That creates fair competition, enabling small businesses to compete successfully. We already have a proven model in the Groceries Code Adjudicator; code breaches fell from 79% in 2014 to 33% in 2024, while food retailers remained profitable and paid food suppliers up to three months faster than clothing retailers pay garment suppliers. Furthermore, the European Union is proposing similar unfair trading practice regulations for the textile sector.
Ahead of establishing the adjudicator, a mandatory supply chain code of practice is needed to define clear rules of fair dealing. First, therefore, the garment trading adjudicator would enforce a mandatory supply chain code of practice, including a legally binding principle of fair dealing, giving suppliers certainty over orders, fair payment timelines and protection from sudden contract changes. Secondly, it would protect suppliers by allowing factory owners, trade unions and third parties to submit evidence through confidential and anonymous reporting channels, supported by a multilingual system so that global suppliers can report in their own languages.
Thirdly, the adjudicator would be empowered to initiate proactive market investigations based on intelligence without requiring an individual, formal public complaint that could expose a single supplier to commercial retaliation. Fourthly, it would have the power to impose financial penalties on abusive retailers who breach the code and require retailers to reimburse suppliers for what they are owed. Finally, the regulator would be funded entirely through a statutory levy on large fashion retailers, placing zero cost on the British taxpayer.
This proposal has been made by the Environmental Audit Committee in the past and has cross-party parliamentary support. By supporting this Bill, we can build on this Government’s impressive work—from the creation of the Fair Work Agency to the new Office for Responsible Business Conduct—and complete the regulatory picture. Establishing a garment trading adjudicator would create a level playing field, in which responsible businesses were protected from unfair competition, small suppliers could invest with confidence, and British retail could stand tall as a global benchmark for ethical trading. I urge the House to support this Bill and grant leave for it to be brought in.
Question put and agreed to.
Ordered,
That Liz Twist, Cat Smith, Ms Stella Creasy, David Mundell, Martin Rhodes, Rachael Maskell, Jeff Smith, Maya Ellis, Bell Ribeiro-Addy, Mary Glindon, Wera Hobhouse and Navendu Mishra present the Bill.
Liz Twist accordingly presented the Bill.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 5 March 2027, and to be printed (Bill 172).
Sporting Events Bill [Lords] (Programme) (No. 2)
Sporting Events Bill [Lords]
(1 day, 6 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
13:35 - The House divided: - Ayes: 62 / Noes: 286 - Question accordingly negatived.
13:48 - The House divided: - Ayes: 91 / Noes: 298 - Question accordingly negatived.
14:01 - The House divided: - Ayes: 93 / Noes: 287 - Question accordingly negatived.
Anna Sabine (Frome and East Somerset) (LD)
I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
Mr Speaker
With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
New clause 2—Strategy for bidding for the FIFA World Cup—
“(1) The Secretary of State must, within 6 months of the passing of this Act, publish a feasibility study and bidding plan for the United Kingdom to bid to host the FIFA World Cup in 2042.
(2) Within one year beginning on the day on which this Act is passed and each subsequent year until the 2042 FIFA World Cup is allocated, the Secretary of State must lay a statement before Parliament to update on the progress of the bidding plan.”
This new clause creates a duty on the Government to prepare a UK bid to host the FIFA World Cup in 2042.
New clause 3—Prohibition on fee-gouging and surge pricing—
“(1) In relation to any sporting event designated under this Act, no person may—
(a) charge, through a ticket resale platform, a transaction fee exceeding 10% of the face value amount;
(b) charge a purchaser in the primary market a transaction fee exceeding 10% of the face value amount;
(c) engage in surge pricing.
(2) In this section—
“primary market” refers to ticketing activities with an authorisation granted under Schedule 1, paragraph 3; and
“surge pricing” is ”dynamic pricing”; when prices are adjusted rapidly and frequently in response to changing demand.”
This new clause caps transaction fees for primary sales and secondary resale platforms at 10% and bans surge pricing for every sporting event designated under the Act.
New clause 4—Prohibition of gambling advertising, marketing and sponsorship—
“(1) A person must not, in connection with a relevant sporting event—
(a) carry out, arrange, or permit advertising or marketing for a gambling business, facility, or brand, or
(b) enter into, give effect to, or display any sponsorship arrangement involving a gambling business.
(2) Subsection (1) applies whether or not the advertising provisions in Schedule 2 have been applied to the event under paragraph (2)(1).
(3) In this section—
“gambling business” means a business providing facilities for gambling within the meaning of section 5 of the Gambling Act 2005 (and includes a gambling brand); and
“relevant sporting event” means a sporting event in relation to which any part of the sporting events framework applies under section (2).”
This new clause prevents gambling advertising, marketing and sponsorship at sporting events covered by this Bill.
New clause 6—Assessment of framework conditions—
“(1) Before making regulations under section 2 in relation to a domestic sporting event, the appropriate national authority must consult—
(a) the Competition and Markets Authority;
(b) persons who appear to the appropriate national authority to represent the interests of consumers who may wish to attend the sporting event;
(c) persons who appear to the appropriate national authority to represent businesses that would be affected by the application of the sporting events framework, including operators of secondary ticketing platforms;
(d) such other persons as the appropriate national authority considers appropriate.
(2) As part of the consultation under subsection (1), the appropriate national authority must—
(a) identify the parts of the sporting events framework proposed to be applied and explain why their application is considered appropriate;
(b) explain the basis on which it considers that each condition in section 3 applicable to the sporting event is met;
(c) set out the evidence, criteria or metrics relied upon;
(d) assess the likely effects of the proposed regulations on consumers, affected businesses and competition; and
(e) invite views on the matters set out in paragraphs (a) to (d).”
This new clause would require the appropriate national authority to consult the Competition and Markets Authority, consumers and affected businesses, and assess the potential impacts on competition and consumer choice before applying the sporting events framework to a domestic sporting event.
New clause 7—Industrial action regulations—
“(1) This section applies in relation to regulations under section 2 which apply the industrial action provisions.
(2) The regulations must specify the period during which the industrial action provisions apply.
(3) The period in subsection (2) must not be shorter than the minimum period.
(4) In subsection (2), the “minimum period” means the period—
(a) beginning on the day on which any part of the sporting events framework is applied and has effect in relation to a sporting event, and
(b) ends on the day on which all provisions of the sporting events framework cease to apply to the sporting event.”
This new clause defines the minimum period in which the appropriate national authority must apply the industrial action provisions.
New clause 8—Exception for charitable auctions—
“(1) The ticket touting offence does not apply in relation to the sale of an event ticket in an auction conducted—
(a) by a charity, or
(b) by a person other than a charity, provided that the proceeds of the event ticket’s sale are given to a charity.
(2) In subsection (1), “charity” has the same meaning as in section 1 of the Charities Act 2011.”
New clause 9—Review of Government’s economic policies on the hosting of major sporting events—
“Within the period of six months beginning on the day on which this Act is passed, the Secretary of State must prepare, publish and lay before both Houses of Parliament, a report assessing the impact of His Majesty’s Government’s economic policies on the ability of the United Kingdom to attract and host major sporting events.”
Amendment 3, in clause 1, page 1, line 10, at end insert—
“(da) Schedule 4A (“the sports rights provisions”).”
Amendment 6, page 1, line 12, at end insert—
“(f) Schedule 6 (“the industrial action provisions”)”.
This amendment inserts industrial action provisions, which would ban strikes by certain workers, including transport workers, when the sporting events framework is applied to a sporting event.
Amendment 8, page 1, line 12, at end insert—
“(f) Schedule 6 (“the single sex protections provisions”).”
Amendment 4, in clause 2, page 2, line 10, at end insert—
“(c) the sports rights provisions.”
Amendment 9, page 2, line 10, at end insert—
“(c) the single sex protections provisions.”
Amendment 7, page 2, line 10, at end insert—
“(2A) Where an appropriate national authority applies one or more of the parts of the sporting events framework to a sporting event by regulations under this section, the appropriate national authority must also apply the industrial action provisions.”
This amendment requires the appropriate national authority to apply the industrial action provisions when they apply one or more other parts of the sporting events framework to a sporting event.
Amendment 1, in clause 3, page 3, line 28, at end insert—
“(6A) The fourth condition is that the live coverage of the sporting event is made available—
(a) free of charge to all persons in the United Kingdom with access to a television or internet-connected device, or
(b) on a platform licensed by Ofcom which is accessible without subscription to members of the public in the United Kingdom.”
This amendment adds a condition for Sporting Events to be covered by this Bill, to include making the sporting event free to air.
Amendment 10, in clause 7, page 5, line 2, at end insert—
“(c) section (Exception for charitable auctions)”
Amendment 13, in clause 26, page 21, line 17, at beginning insert “Subject to subsection (4A),”
Amendment 2, page 21, line 19, leave out from “event” to end of line 20 and insert —
“(i) that takes place wholly or partly in a relevant part of the United Kingdom, and
(ii) the live coverage of which is made available—
(A) free of charge to all persons in the United Kingdom with access to a television or internet-connected device, or
(B) on a platform licensed by Ofcom which is accessible without subscription to members of the public in the United Kingdom.”
This amendment would require that any event receiving financial support from the UK Government must be broadcast free to air as a condition of that support.
Amendment 14, page 21, line 36, at end insert—
“(4A) The power under subsection (1) may only be exercised if the appropriate national legislature has approved the financial assistance by resolution.”
Amendment 15, page 21, line 41, at end insert—
“the appropriate national legislature” means—
(a) in relation to England, the House of Commons;
(b) in relation to Scotland, the Scottish Parliament;
(c) in relation to Northern Ireland, the Northern Irish Assembly.”
New schedule 1—Industrial Action Provisions—
“Part 1
Offences
Industrial action transport offences
1 (1) It is an offence for a transport worker to engage in any industrial action at any time during the specified period.
(2) It is an offence for any person to—
(a) arrange for any industrial action to be carried out by a transport worker,
(b) permit the carrying out of such action, or
(c) induce a transport worker to engage in industrial action, at any time during the specified period.
(3) In this paragraph, a “transport worker” means an employee of a transport service anywhere in the United Kingdom.
(4) The following are to be considered as transport services for the purposes of this paragraph—
(a) airport operation services;
(b) bus services;
(c) light rail services;
(d) passenger railway services.
(5) In this paragraph—
“airport operation services” has the same meaning as in section 88 of the Civil Aviation Act 2012;
“bus services” has the same meaning as in section 162 of the Transport Act 2000;
“light rail services” means passenger railway services provided on or in respect of any of the following light rail systems known at the time this Act comes into force as—
(a) Blackpool Tramway;
(b) Docklands Light Railway;
(c) Edinburgh Trams;
(d) Glasgow Subway;
(e) London Trams;
(f) London Underground;
(g) Manchester Metrolink;
(h) Nottingham Express Transit;
(i) Sheffield Supertram;
(j) Tyne & Wear Metro;
(k) West Midlands Metro;
“passenger railway services” means—
(a) services for the carriage of passengers by railway by a person providing services—
(i) under a franchise agreement within the meaning of section 23(3) of the Railways Act 1993 (“the 1993 Act”),
(ii) under, or secured under, the duty in section 30(1) of the 1993 Act,
(iii) under an agreement to which one of the persons listed in section 24A(4)(a) of the 1993 Act is a party, or
(iv) under, or secured under, section 173(1) of the Greater London Authority Act 1999, or
(b) the refuelling of any locomotive or other rolling stock used for the services mentioned in sub-paragraph (a) by the person providing those services.
(6) Services relating to the following are not passenger railway services for the purposes of this paragraph—
(a) a train operation service using a railway which the Office of Rail and Road determines in accordance with regulation 2A(1) of the Railways and Other Guided Transport Systems (Safety) Regulations 2006 is a heritage, museum or tourist railway that operates on its own network;
(b) a train operation service that starts or terminates outside Great Britain.
(7) In this paragraph—
“services for the carriage of passengers by railway” has the same meaning as in Part 1 of the 1993 Act (see section 82(2) of that Act);
“locomotive” , “network”, “rolling stock”, “station”, “track” and “train” have the meanings given by section 83(1) of the 1993 Act, but in applying the definitions in that subsection, references to “railway” in the definitions are to be treated as having the meaning given in sub-paragraph;
“railway” has the meaning given by section 67(1) of the Transport and Works Act 1992 but includes a “tramway” within the meaning of that section.
Industrial action local authority offences
2 (1) It is an offence for a relevant local authority worker to engage in any industrial action at any time during the specified period.
(2) It is an offence for any person to—
(a) arrange for any industrial action to be carried out in a relevant local authority area, or
(b) permit the carrying out of such action, at any time during the specified period.
(3) In this paragraph—
“relevant local authority worker” means an employee of a relevant local authority;
“relevant local authority” means any local authority which has responsibility for the provision of one or more services in an area in which a specified sporting event, or an event that is part of the sporting event, is to be held;
“relevant local authority area” means the geographical area in which a relevant local authority has jurisdiction;
Part 2
Enforcement
Penalties on conviction
3 (1) A person guilty of an offence under this Schedule is liable—
(a) on summary conviction in England and Wales, to a fine;
(b) on summary conviction in Northern Ireland, to a fine not exceeding £50,000.
(2) A person guilty of an offence under this Schedule in Scotland is liable—
(a) on summary conviction, to a fine not exceeding £20,000;
(b) on conviction on indictment, to a fine.
Power to impose financial penalties
4 (1) The appropriate national authority may impose a financial penalty on a person if the appropriate national authority is satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the person has committed an offence under this Schedule in relation to the sporting event.
(2) The amount of the penalty is to be decided by the appropriate national authority, but must not be more than £20,000.
(3) Only one financial penalty may be imposed in respect of the same conduct.
(4) No financial penalty may be imposed in respect of any conduct if—
(a) the person has been convicted of an offence under this Schedule in respect of the same conduct,
(b) criminal proceedings for an offence under this Schedule in respect of the same conduct have been instituted against the person and the proceedings have not been concluded, or
(c) criminal proceedings for an offence under this Schedule in respect of the same conduct have been concluded and the person has not been convicted.
(5) A person may not be convicted of an offence under this Schedule if a financial penalty has been imposed under this paragraph in respect of the same conduct.
Notice of intention to impose financial penalty
5 (1) Before imposing a financial penalty on a person under paragraph 4, an appropriate national authority must give the person a notice (a “notice of intention”) stating that the authority proposes to do so.
(2) The notice of intention must be given before the end of the period of 12 months beginning with the first day on which the authority has sufficient evidence that the person has committed an offence under part 1 of this Schedule.
(3) The notice of intention must set out—
(a) the amount of the proposed financial penalty,
(b) the reasons for proposing to impose the financial penalty, and
(c) information about the right to make representations under paragraph 6.
Right to make representations
6 (1) A person who is given a notice of intention may make written representations to the appropriate national authority which gave the notice about the proposal to impose a financial penalty.
(2) Any representations must be made within the period of 28 days beginning with the day after that on which the notice of intention was given to the person.
Final notice
7 (1) After the end of the period mentioned in paragraph 6(2) the appropriate national authority must—
(a) decide whether to impose a financial penalty on the person, and
(b) if it decides to do so, decide the amount of the penalty.
(2) If the authority decides to impose a financial penalty on the person, it must give a notice to the person (a “final notice”) imposing that penalty.
(3) The final notice must require the penalty to be paid within the period of 28 days beginning with the day after that on which the notice was given.
(4) The final notice must set out—
(a) the amount of the financial penalty (which may be less than the amount specified in the notice of intention, but cannot be more),
(b) the reasons for imposing the penalty,
(c) information about how to pay the penalty,
(d) the period for payment of the penalty
(e) information about rights of appeal, and
(f) the consequences of failure to comply with the notice.
Withdrawal or amendment of notice
8 (1) The appropriate national authority may at any time—
(a) withdraw a notice of intention or final notice, or
(b) reduce an amount specified in a notice of intention or final notice.
(2) The power in sub-paragraph (1) is to be exercised by giving notice to the person on whom the notice was given.
Appeals
9 (1) A person to whom a final notice is given may appeal against—
(a) the decision to impose the penalty;
(b) the amount of the penalty.
(2) The appeal may be made—
(a) in England and Wales, to the First-tier Tribunal;
(b) in Scotland, to the sheriff;
(c) in Northern Ireland, to a county court.
(3) An appeal under this paragraph must be made within the period of 28 days beginning with the day after that on which the final notice is given to the person.
(4) If a person appeals under this paragraph, the final notice is suspended until the appeal is finally determined, withdrawn or abandoned.
(5) An appeal under this paragraph—
(a) is to be a re-hearing of the appropriate national authority’s decision, but
(b) may be determined having regard to matters of which the authority was unaware.
(6) On an appeal under this paragraph the First-tier Tribunal or the court may quash, confirm or vary the final notice.
(7) The final notice may not be varied under sub-paragraph (6) so as to make it impose a financial penalty of a greater amount than the appropriate national authority could have imposed.
Recovery of financial penalty
10 (1) This paragraph applies if a person fails to pay the whole or any part of a financial penalty which has been imposed on a person in accordance with this Schedule.
(2) In England and Wales the appropriate national authority which imposed the penalty may recover the penalty or part on the order of the county court as if it were payable under an order of that court.
(3) In Scotland the penalty may be enforced in the same manner as an extract registered decree arbitral bearing a warrant for execution issued by the sheriff of any sheriffdom in Scotland.
(4) In Northern Ireland the authority which imposed the financial penalty may recover the penalty or part on the order of a county court as if it were payable under an order of that court.
(5) In any proceedings relating to a financial penalty, a certificate that—
(a) purports to be signed by or on behalf of the person with responsibility for the financial affairs of the authority which imposed the penalty, and
(b) states that payment of the financial penalty was, or was not, received by a date specified in the certificate, is evidence of the facts stated.
Proceeds of financial penalties
11 Where a relevant enforcement authority imposes a financial penalty under paragraph 4, it may use the proceeds for the purposes of any of its functions.
No protection if union induces industrial action
12 Where industrial action is prohibited during a specified period under this Schedule, an act done by a trade union to induce or attempt to induce a person to engage in industrial action is not protected from any proceedings in tort.
Part 3
Interpretation
13 In this Schedule—
“industrial action” means action taken by workers against their employer in furtherance of a trade dispute;
“specified period” means the “minimum period" specified in the regulations as required by section [Industrial action regulations];
“strike” means any concerted stoppage of work;
“trade dispute” has the meaning given by section 244 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992.”
This new Schedule establishes the industrial action provisions, referred to in Amendments 6,7 and NC7, and sets out penalties for breaching them.
New schedule 2—The single sex protection provisions—
“Protections for participants in major sporting events
1 (1) Before the Secretary of State may make regulations under section (2), the Secretary of State must be satisfied that the organiser of a sporting event will—
(a) provide that all competitors in the single-sex sporting event compete against those of the same biological sex in the interests of fairness and safety;
(b) provide that all competitors and officials in the sporting event are able to use—
(i) single sex accommodation based on their biological sex;
(ii) single sex changing and washing facilities based on their biological sex;
(iii) single sex toilets based on their biological sex.
Protections for spectators of major sporting events
2 (1) Before the Secretary of State may make regulations under section (2), the Secretary of State must be satisfied that the organiser of a sporting event will—
(a) make facilities available onsite, so that all spectators and staff, or any person attending the sporting event are able to use—
(i) single sex toilets based on their biological sex;
(ii) single sex changing and washing facilities where necessary based on their biological sex.
(2) In this section, "onsite" means a place specified or described in the regulations as required by section 11(2)(a).
Accessible facilities
3 (1) Nothing in paragraphs 1 or 2 requires that self-contained toilet, changing or washing facilities to be restricted to persons of one sex only.
(2) Self-contained facilities may be used by persons of either sex, together with any carer or assistant, provided that appropriate arrangements are made to ensure the privacy and dignity of users.
Financial Assistance
4 Before the Secretary of State may make regulations under section (26), the Secretary of State must be satisfied that the organiser of the sporting event and the organisers of associated legacy programmes and social impact initiatives comply with regulations under paragraphs (1), (2) and (3).
Interpretation
5 In the application of this Schedule to a sporting event by regulations under section (2), references to “single sex” means sex as defined in the Equality Act 2010.”
This new Schedule, with Amendments 8 and 9, add single-sex protection provisions to the framework to ensure the provision of single-sex competitions and facilities at major sporting events, as well as at associated events. Provides for an exemption for self-contained facilities, including for disabled people. It would also prevent relevant authorities providing funding for events that do not comply with single sex protections as defined in the Equality Act 2010.
Amendment 11, in schedule 1, page 26, line 20, at end insert—
“(4A) It is not an offence under this paragraph for a person (“A”) to advertise that an event ticket is available for purchase from another person (“B”) unless A knows, or ought to know, that B is touting an event ticket.”
This amendment mirrors a defence in the Birmingham Commonwealth Games Act 2020 to ensure that the offence of advertising that an event ticket is available for purchase does not apply strict liability.
Amendment 12, page 28, line 7, at end insert—
“(2A) An authorisation under this paragraph must include a secondary ticketing condition.
(2B) A “secondary ticketing condition” is a condition that requires a person granted a ticketing authorisation under this paragraph to have and maintain a mechanism through which an event ticket can be transferred or sold to another person.”
Amendment 5, in schedule 4, page 45, line 20, at end insert—
“Schedule 4A
SPORTS RIGHTS PROVISIONS
1 (1) A sporting event betting licence is a licence issued by a sporting event controlling body which allows a gambling business to make use of information or data derived from or relating to a specified sporting event in the places, at the times and for the purposes specified in the licence.
(2) A sporting event betting licence must—
(a) provide for the sharing of information between the sporting event controlling body and the gambling business for the purpose of protecting and supporting integrity in sports and betting services; and
(b) state any fee payable by the gambling business to the sporting event controlling body in respect of the facilities for gambling in relation to the sporting event.
(3) A sporting event betting licence may prohibit betting on a particular contingency or class of contingencies in relation to a sporting event if the sporting event controlling body considers that betting on the contingency may expose the relevant sporting event or class of sporting event to unmanageable integrity risks.
(4) A sporting event betting licence takes effect, and may be terminated, in accordance with its terms.
2 (1) It is an offence for a gambling business to offer facilities for gambling in relation to a sporting event unless it is licensed to do so by the relevant sporting event controlling body through a sporting event betting licence.
(2) A person guilty of an offence under this paragraph is liable—
(a) on summary conviction in England and Wales, to a fine;
(b) on summary conviction in Northern Ireland, to a fine not exceeding £50,000.
(3) A person guilty of an offence under this paragraph in Scotland is liable—
(a) on summary conviction, to a fine not exceeding £20,000;
(b) on conviction on indictment, to a fine.
(4) Where a gambling business has been found guilty of an offence under this paragraph in England and Wales, the offence may also be investigated and the gambling business prosecuted by the Gambling Commission under section 28 of the Gambling Act 2005 as if the offence were an offence under that Act.
(5) Where a gambling business has been found guilty of an offence under this paragraph, the conduct constituting the offence is actionable by the relevant sporting event controlling body, which may seek—
(a) an injunction, or in Scotland an interdict, requiring the provision of those facilities to cease;
(b) damages.”
Anna Sabine
As we have said before, the Liberal Democrats welcome this Bill. We recognise that the Euros, the world cup and the Olympics have huge positive implications, such as boosting our economy and bringing people together. Making these events easier for the UK to deliver is therefore the right thing to do.
On Second Reading, I emphasised my disappointment that the Bill did not include cultural or music events—industries that also bring billions into the UK’s economy, and events that encounter many of the same problems as sporting events. I have met Ministers, and I understand their position that cultural events are not within the scope of the Bill. However, I did not want to let debate on the Bill close without emphasising again that this is a missed opportunity to support cultural and music events.
There are other areas in which the Bill could be stronger, the first of which is free-to-air sports. This year, for the first time since the champions league began in 1992, supporters could not watch the final without paying. This is the latest in a long line of events that have gone behind a paywall. Meanwhile, the BBC’s coverage of the Lionesses has inspired a generation of girls to pick up a football, and Channel 4’s Paralympics coverage has shown disabled children what is possible. Free-to-air coverage works, and amendments 1 and 2 would ensure that any event covered by this Bill or backed by public money would be available to all. As well as that, new clause 2 proposes a bidding framework to bring football home, making sure that the Government can host the 2042 world cup. The Liberal Democrats have also long argued that gambling advertising has no place in sport. New clause 4 would ban gambling advertising, marketing and sponsorship from the events that are covered by this legislation.
All those amendments matter to sport, which is why I have continued to push for them during the passage of the Bill. However, the amendment I wish to push to a Division today deals with ticket touting. The Labour party manifesto says:
“Access to music, drama and sport has become difficult and expensive because of ticket touting. Labour will put fans back at the heart of events by introducing new consumer protections on ticket resales.”
That is a pledge to act, in black and white. Elsewhere, the Government have pledged to bring forward legislation that will ban ticket resales at above face value. The commitment is clear, but this Bill contains a framework for implementing all of those promises, and the Government have chosen not to act this time.
Dame Caroline Dinenage (Gosport) (Con)
I am sure the hon. Lady agrees that it is really good that the scope of this Bill was extended to include more major events, not just one big-ticket item. However, it now creates a two-tier ticketing system; it places restrictions on the sale of tickets to only a few sporting events, while music events and other cultural events are waiting for a solution that has been promised but not come. Does the hon. Lady agree that that puts in stark perspective the urgent need for the ticket touting Bill to come forward as quickly as possible?
Anna Sabine
It would be very unwise to disagree with the hon. Member on any issue relating to this area; yes, I totally agree with her. The issue of ticket sales really needs clarification.
Every year, fans lose £145 million from tickets being resold at eye-watering prices. Every time the Government delay reforming ticket sales, more and more money is lost and—more importantly—another eager fan misses out on watching their team play. The Government keep promising further legislation down the line, but the Liberal Democrats are calling for action to be taken now, which is why we have tabled new clause 1. This new clause does what the Government have promised and what this Bill fails to do: it stops tickets being resold at above face value. It would mean that no more fans are priced out by an algorithm and no more touts profit at the expense of the people who love sport, and also live music and theatre. The Government say that they back reform; today, they can prove it. I hope this House will vote to support new clause 1.
Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)
Thank you, Mr Speaker. I think we are seeing a first in this House—a debate in which the Member for Harlow is called first. I welcome it. You are in a good mood, Mr Speaker, because it is Lancashire Day today.
Chris Vince
Well, as a sort of adopted Yorkshireman, I look forward to celebrating it with you.
It is a pleasure to speak in this debate. As you know, Mr Speaker, I am a keen football supporter, and although the fortunes of both Harlow Town and Leeds United have been somewhat inconsistent in recent years—I know that the hon. Member for Bridlington and The Wolds (Charlie Dewhirst), who is sitting opposite me, is looking forward to a positive Farke-led revolution—I feel an immense sense of pride when the country hosts sporting events. I think not only of the 2012 Olympics; I am old enough to remember Euro ’96, when football came home, but perhaps not in all the ways we hoped it would.
I also pay tribute to the Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport, my right hon. Friend the Member for Wigan (Lisa Nandy), for her commitment and dedication to sport in this country. Whether it is grassroots football teams such as the league-winning Roydon FC or our Ballon d’Or winning England captain Harry Kane—
The Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (Lisa Nandy)
Or Wigan Warriors!
Chris Vince
I know that sport, and indeed the fantastic rugby league players who I know, Mr Speaker, you regularly cheer on—
Chris Vince
Maybe between us, we can change that. [Interruption.] I feel like I have started an argument between Mr Speaker and the Secretary of State that the Secretary of State is not going to win, so I will move on quickly.
Sport has the opportunity not only to improve people’s lives, but to change people’s lives. I have formed friendships by standing at Harlow Town football club week in, week out, and I am forever grateful for having had that opportunity. This Bill will strengthen the UK’s position as a world-leading host of major sporting events by establishing a legal framework that makes it easier to host international competitions, and strengthen our advantage when bidding for future tournaments.
I welcome some of the suggestions made by the Liberal Democrats in their amendments, but I believe that the Bill in its current form already addresses unauthorised ticket touting. We need to see the back of that menace. We want real sports fans to have the opportunity to go to these sporting events.
Nigel Huddleston (Droitwich and Evesham) (Con)
Having served as the Sports Minister overseeing the Birmingham 2022 Commonwealth games, I know at first hand the incredible opportunities and challenges that come with hosting major international sporting events. For that reason I broadly welcome the Bill and the framework it seeks to establish. The case for hosting major sporting events is clear: they generate significant economic activity, support jobs, inspire participation in sport and leave lasting legacies in communities across the country.
Sport contributes more than £53 billion annually to the UK economy. Major events play an important role in supporting growth across sectors such as tourism and hospitality. The Birmingham Commonwealth games alone generated an additional £1.2 billion in economic value added, as well as leaving a legacy of improved or new facilities in and around Birmingham. As we look ahead to Euro 2028, and as we pursue our ambition to host the 2035 women’s world cup—and a future Olympic games—it is vital that we have a modern and effective legislative framework in place. Historically, Parliament has had to legislate separately for each major event, and that approach is neither efficient nor sustainable.
The Bill’s strength is that it creates a standing framework through which future events can be delivered more effectively, reducing unnecessary bureaucracy while ensuring the UK remains an attractive place, if not the best in the world, to host major sporting competitions. For those reasons, I support the broad aims of the Bill.
Although the Government have already accepted some amendments, including incorporating a limited number of recurring annual events, the Opposition Front Bench have tabled a few further amendments and enhancements that I would like the Government to consider supporting. First, the success of a major sporting event depends not only on athletes and organisers but on the transport networks and public services that allow spectators, volunteers and competitors to participate. When that infrastructure is disrupted by industrial action, as we have seen, local businesses lose trade, visitors face uncertainty and the reputation of the host nation can suffer. Many will remember the strikes planned to coincide with the opening of the Birmingham 2022 Commonwealth games, which were a deliberate attempt to disrupt a major national event, while the country was recovering from the pandemic, with the intent of causing maximum disruption. Furthermore, the Government had to dip into contingencies—taxpayer’s money—to the tune of £4 million to provide alternative transport options for sporting fans. Any opportunity to limit such damage would be welcome.
Secondly, a major sporting event should not only showcase excellence on the field of play but command the confidence of athletes, spectators and governing bodies alike. For many people, maintaining fairness in women’s sporting competition and preserving appropriate single-sex spaces form an important part of that confidence. The Opposition’s amendments would incorporate single-sex protections into the sporting events framework, ensuring that where it is applied, major sporting events and associated activities provide single-sex competitions and facilities in accordance with the Equality Act 2010. The proposals also provide sensible exemptions for self-contained facilities, including those designed for disabled people, recognising that accessibility, dignity and practicality must sit alongside privacy and fairness.
There are also several proposals and amendments relating to ticketing and ticket touting, in particular the secondary ticket market. We need to be careful in this area. There is cross-party support for ensuring that we do not have rip-off ticketing in sporting and many other events. We also need to ensure a valid, perfectly legitimate secondary ticket market can thrive, because that can be good for consumers, and competition can help keep prices low. There have been circumstances where a monopoly has been created in sporting events. That may have been well intended, but it has led to organisers charging considerable amounts in, for example, fees. We saw that during the FIFA world cup, where the official resale platform charged a 15% fee to buyers and sellers. That demonstrates how easily costs can be passed on to supporters when limited competition and no alternative marketplace is available. I therefore ask the Government to consider what further evidence may be required when looking at this challenging marketplace.
I stress again that I support the overall purpose of the Bill and the framework it establishes, but if we are serious about maximising the benefits of hosting major sporting events, we should also be prepared to strengthen the legislation where necessary. The amendments would do exactly that, so I hope the Minister will consider them carefully.
Mr Bayo Alaba (Southend East and Rochford) (Ind)
I welcome this Bill, because I know from experience how important it is. Before becoming the Member of Parliament for Southend East and Rochford, I was fortunate enough to be involved in the London 2012 Olympic games, the Euro 2020 football championships and the 2022 FIFA world cup. I have seen at first hand what it takes to make a major sporting event a success and the benefits it can have for the wider community. These events have taught me that while venues, organisation and promotion are all important, the most crucial factor is support from Government and local authorities. Unfortunately, that support is not consistent across the country. While some areas have the relationships, expertise and capacity to help sporting events thrive, others start from scratch each and every time. That is why the Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Committee has called for a national strategy for major events, and I welcome the Government’s commitment to publish one.
The Committee has also called for responsibility for major events to be moved from the Department for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport to the Department for Business and Trade. That move would highlight the role of events in driving investment, tourism and growth. The importance of major sporting events is not just their financial contribution, but their ability to create and celebrate community. We also see that in grassroots events, such as Rochford Hundred’s Remembrance Day fixture, which recently brought the community together in an extraordinary way. That event was not a global spectacle, but it showed the true power of sport in building community. I commend the club’s president, Ray Stephenson, and its chairman, Steve Maguire, who made that match happen.
I finish by encouraging colleagues to think back to the successful sporting events of the past few decades, and specifically their ability to make the whole country feel united. In these times, we all know how important it is to stay united. This Bill strengthens our ability to deliver those moments and ensures that the benefits reach every community in the country.
Nigel Huddleston
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker, please forgive me for the omission, but I neglected to refer Members to my declaration in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests when I gave my speech some moments ago.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Thank you, Mr Huddleston. That has most definitely been put on the record.
Liz Jarvis (Eastleigh) (LD)
I also point Members to my declaration in the register. Major sporting events bring significant economic and social benefits, from hospitality and tourism to grassroots participation and improved facilities. I am very proud that next summer, the Utilita Bowl in Eastleigh will host its first men’s Ashes test, which is expected to generate millions a day for the local economy. However, those benefits depend on fans being treated fairly, and that starts with ticket pricing.
The Bill makes it a criminal offence to tout tickets for an event covered by the framework, in the relevant area during a specified period. Fans have waited too long for touting to be tackled and the unlimited fines send the right signal. However, while the Bill criminalises unauthorised resale, even at or below face value, it sets no price limit on authorised resale, leaving fans exposed. That is why I welcome new clauses 1 and 3. New clause 1 would stop tickets being resold above their original cost and cap resale platform fees, while new clause 3 would cap transaction fees at 10% and ban surge pricing. This means the most a fan could ever be charged for a ticket they can no longer use is the price they paid. The Government have committed to capping resale prices on the same basis as new clause 1, but have promised only a draft Bill: the new clauses would protect fans sooner.
Too many fans are now priced out of watching the sport they love, not just in stadiums but at home. Amendment 1 would make free-to-air coverage a condition for any event covered by this Bill. As many of us remember, in 2022, 17.4 million people watched the Lionesses win the Euros on BBC One. In the season that followed, the FA estimated there was a 140% increase in girls under 16 playing football, including in my constituency, with 2.3 million more women and girls playing the game than the year before. I will not lean on the old line that girls cannot be what they cannot see and I would not claim that free-to-air coverage is the only reason for that growth, but it is part of the story. As I mentioned, next year’s fourth Ashes Test will be played in Eastleigh, but no home Ashes series has been shown live on free-to-air television since 2005. Where public money is given to an event, fans who cannot get a ticket should not then be shut out by the cost of a subscription as well.
The Bill will create restricted advertising zones around events, where unauthorised advertising will become a criminal offence. However, that protects commercial rights, not the content of what is advertised, leaving the door open for gambling companies to remain official sponsors. The Liberal Democrats have long called for stronger protections, and new clause 4 would deliver them by prohibiting gambling advertising, marketing and sponsorship at every event covered by the Bill. The Government’s impact assessment estimates that hundreds of street traders will be affected by trading restrictions, but the Bill includes no statutory duty to consult them before a restricted trading zone is created.
In my constituency, West End has a compact high street close to the Utilita Bowl. Depending on how a zone is drawn, it could cover much of the village’s commercial centre. Can the Minister explain what those restrictions would mean in practice for businesses like those in West End? New clause 6 would require consultation with those representing affected businesses, but would not guarantee that the traders themselves or councils are given a say over how a zone is drawn. I ask the Minister to consider requiring a brief impact assessment for nearby small businesses, with local authorities given a statutory right to comment before a zone is confirmed. If the Bill is to work for sport, it must work for local businesses and fans too.
Steve Barclay (North East Cambridgeshire) (Con)
I rise to speak to amendments 8 and 6, on industrial action and single sex protections respectively. The point I wish to raise goes further than this specific Bill, because I think it is a perfect case study of the purpose of the Chamber. We have a Bill that, as the hon. Member for Southend East and Rochford (Mr Alaba) articulated, has broad support across the House and is not a controversial Bill. Colleagues on both sides of the House love sport and want our country to attract major sporting events to our shores, and they see sport as a force for good in unifying communities—I very much agreed with his sentiments on that point.
The Opposition have tabled two modest, reasonable and sensible amendments, one of which would simply build on the existing law and provide that if we are to use taxpayers’ money on events in the UK, they should surely comply with UK law. That is the very essence of a modest amendment. We have a consensual Bill, and the amendment simply restates the existing law and how it would apply to an international competition held in this country.
Rebecca Paul (Reigate) (Con)
It is a pleasure to speak today on behalf of the official Opposition, and I refer Members to my entry in the Members’ Register of Financial Interests.
As I made clear at Second Reading, Britain has a world-class sporting heritage and a renowned reputation for hosting major events. From the Olympics and the Paralympics to Wimbledon, the Open and the British grand prix, these occasions bring pride to our country, support jobs and inspire future generations. That is why the Opposition support a permanent legislative framework to help Britain host such events, and why we have sought to work constructively with the Government on maximising the opportunity.
The result of that can be seen in the Bill before us today. It has benefited considerably from scrutiny, particularly the work of Lord Parkinson, Lord Markham and Baroness Evans in the other place. One of their most significant achievements was extending the framework to major recurring sporting events. Under the Bill as originally drafted, international tournaments visiting Britain could benefit, whereas established fixtures such as Wimbledon and the London marathon could not. Thanks to Conservative peers working alongside Lord Addington and others, the Lords voted to remove that exclusion. I welcome the Government’s subsequent acceptance of the principle, albeit with additional conditions introduced.
Several of our other amendments address practical concerns raised in Committee. New clause 8 and amendment 10 would give genuine charitable ticket auctions the protection they deserve. A charity auctioning donated tickets for a good cause should not be treated in the same way as a professional ticket tout, and neither should it have to depend on exemptions that Ministers might grant later. We have also proposed safeguards for ordinary supporters who need to resell tickets, stronger parliamentary scrutiny of financial assistance, and an assessment of how the Government’s economic policies affect Britain’s ability to attract major sporting events.
Those are important issues, and I hope the Government will give them proper consideration, but today I want to focus on our proposals for two major improvements to the Bill. The first concerns industrial action and is set out in amendment 6, alongside amendment 7, new clause 7 and new schedule 1. Taken together, these provisions would establish new protections against industrial action disrupting major sporting events. As my hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr French) explained in Committee, there is little point putting elaborate protections in place for ticketing, advertising, trading and commercial rights if an event can nevertheless be brought to a standstill by industrial action.
We saw the risk of disruption to the Birmingham Commonwealth games in 2022, when rail strikes were announced around the period of the games. More recently, threatened action at Scottish airports raised concerns ahead of the Glasgow Commonwealth games. We should remember the enormous economic consequences of transport disruption. Last year’s London underground strikes cost Transport for London an estimated £20 million to £25 million in lost fares alone, with the wider economic impact estimated at £230 million.
Major sporting events take years to secure and organise. Spectators travel from across the world, businesses invest in preparation, and our international reputation depends on delivering what we have promised, yet all of that can be jeopardised by industrial action at precisely the wrong moment. Our amendments would make restrictions on industrial action by specified transport and local authority workers a mandatory part of the framework during the relevant period. These protections should not be an optional extra applied to some events but not others. The Government rejected similar proposals in Committee, citing workers’ rights, but surely we must also consider the rights of spectators, athletes and businesses who have invested their time and money in such events. The Minister has yet to explain how the Government intend to protect major sporting events from this very real risk, and I hope she will do so today.
I will move on to our second substantial proposal, which concerns fairness, safety and the protection of women’s sport. This is advanced through amendment 8, supported by amendment 9 and new schedule 2. Given its importance, I want to devote the remainder of my contribution to these provisions.
At the Paris Olympics in 2024, something shocking happened. It was in a women’s boxing match between Angela Carini of Italy and Imane Khelif of Algeria. After taking heavy blows to the face, Angela signalled for the referee to stop the fight. Just 46 seconds after the contest began, Khelif was declared the winner. Angela fell to her knees in tears, her Olympic dreams shattered, but this was not a fair fight—it was not a fair competition. Angela was fighting a man, and it was obvious to anyone with eyes, yet arguably even more shocking than the fight itself was the response. There was more criticism and ridicule of Angela for not shaking his hand in the ring, and for crying, than of a man punching a woman in the face repeatedly. As often happens, the feelings of a man were being prioritised over fairness and the safety of a woman.
What I observed was cowardice on a huge scale. Even Members of this House disgustingly celebrated this televised male violence against a woman, which cheated her out of the competition. Sport is played with our bodies. Men, on average, are much stronger and faster—biology matters. Angela and many other women who have been forced to compete against men have been put at risk of harm. This should never happen again in a sporting event anywhere. Our amendments would at least help to ensure that it cannot happen on British soil.
Thankfully, there has been some progress. In March this year the International Olympic Committee announced that, from the Los Angeles Olympics in 2028, eligibility for women’s competition will be determined through a one-time, non-invasive genetic test via a cheek swab. This will apply across Olympic sports, with the IOC explicitly recognising the importance of fairness and safety. Following the controversies of Paris, this is a welcome step towards restoring confidence in women’s sport.
In this country, we do not accept cheating, we do not accept women being treated as second-class citizens and we respect the law, which is very clear on this matter. That is so important, because sporting organisations, even after the For Women Scotland case, are still failing to ensure that the women’s category does not include males. They continue to turn a blind eye or come up with spurious reasons why they can sidestep the law.
Take table tennis and squash here in England. Both governing bodies now recognise the importance of biological sex in determining eligibility for women’s competitions, but both operate a two-tier system. Table Tennis England restricts its women’s category at nationally ranked competitions to female players, yet allows males to compete in women’s categories at local level. England Squash similarly excludes males from its female category in regulated competitions but permits their participation in recreational competitions. Both organisations accept the need for fairness at higher levels while sacrificing the integrity of the female category further down, but surely fairness matters to women at the grassroots just as much as it does to elite athletes. Why should a woman playing in her local league be entitled to any less consideration than a national champion? Do these organisations not realise that cheating a young girl out of her rightful podium place at grassroots level means that she is more likely to give up any dreams of progressing further?
Consider FIFA, which governs the women’s world cup. Its gender verification regulations date back to 2011, place responsibility largely on national football associations and expressly rule out routine testing. FIFA announced a review of the rules years ago, yet we are still waiting for a clear, updated approach. The consequences of these differing standards are already apparent. Zambia’s Barbra Banda was withdrawn from the 2022 women’s Africa cup of nations on gender eligibility grounds, yet subsequently competed at the 2023 women’s world cup and was named the BBC’s women’s footballer of the year in 2024. A once-in-a-lifetime sex screen would ensure that no male competes in such events.
Take the most recent announcement by the London marathon, which is considering allowing male pacemakers into the elite women’s race next year. The organisers say that it is to help women shatter the world record, but is it? In the words of the famed Olympian, Baroness Davies of Devonport:
“So do they have cheetahs to pace make for men’s races? Or just other men maybe?”
Even if the London marathon’s intentions are entirely honourable, the organisers will be changing a single-sex race into a mixed-sex one, thereby opening the door for male competitors to participate and win. It is exactly this type of thing that our amendments would prevent for such major sporting events.
What would the protections in our new schedule 2 actually do? First, it would require the Secretary of State, before applying the sporting events framework, to be satisfied that organisers will ensure that competitors in single-sex events compete against those of the same biological sex. It would also require single-sex accommodation, changing and washing facilities, and toilets for competitors and officials. These protections would extend to spectators and staff, ensuring access to appropriate single-sex toilets, changing and washing facilities. New schedule 2 also seeks to prevent financial assistance from being provided to sporting events, or to associated legacy and social impact programmes, where the required protections are not observed.
The Opposition do not believe that any male should be competing in women’s sport, and we do not support any sporting organisation benefiting from the Bill or getting taxpayer support if they do not respect the law. The Minister may once again tell us that existing legislation is sufficient. We have already heard that argument in Committee, and we remain unconvinced. I suspect the female athletes losing podium places to biological men feel the same.
I know many sensible Labour Members entirely agree with us on this, and there may even be a couple of Lib Dems who do, but none of the Greens do. Today, I am asking those Members and the Government more broadly to be brave and do the right thing. Backing amendment 8 and the single-sex protections that it would help establish would ensure that women’s sport was protected at these sporting events, and that only females could compete. If Members are still feeling a bit yellow about it, they should do it for their daughters, their wives and their mums. This is about ensuring that female athletes can compete fairly, that sportswomen have access to appropriate facilities, and that the sporting organisations benefiting from this framework are held to the highest standards.
This Bill offers a rare opportunity to strengthen Britain’s position as a leading host of major sporting events. We support that ambition and welcome the improvements made during the Bill’s passage, and we have put forward a number of reasonable amendments, but we can and must go further. After all, what is the point of putting on a world-class competition if no one can get to it, and if the games are rigged from the start?
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (Stephanie Peacock)
Today’s debate has broadly shown cross-party recognition of the importance of major sporting events and their ability to showcase the very best of our country. The UK is a world leader when it comes to hosting major sporting events; this Bill will make sure that we continue to attract the world’s biggest sporting moments, and to welcome the social and economic benefits they bring.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
Madam Deputy Speaker, I apologise for not being here at the very beginning of the debate, as I know I am meant to be. Running any sporting event, be it the Commonwealth games or a football tournament, is almost impossible for one city to do on its own because of the financial cost, but it may be possible for a number of UK cities to hold it together. Will the Government commit to ensuring that, if we hold a showpiece football tournament or the Commonwealth games, Northern Ireland, Scotland, Wales and England can all be part of it?
Stephanie Peacock
The hon. Gentleman makes an incredibly important point. Indeed, we are working together on Euro 2028, which is the first tournament to which this Bill will apply.
This is a framework Bill that covers ticketing, transport, advertising, trading and unauthorised association. Proportionality is now embedded in these powers—I gave that commitment on Second Reading—so that everyone, particularly small and micro-sized businesses, can benefit when the world comes to visit us. After valuable discussions in this House and the other place, we are pleased that the Bill will also extend to our world-class recurrent events, so that those internationally acclaimed events can apply for and benefit from the powers in this Bill.
I am grateful for the contributions from across the House.
Dame Caroline Dinenage
I am grateful to the Minister for appearing before the Culture, Media and Sport Committee during our inquiry on major events earlier in the year. We asked her what more she could do to demonstrate that the Government were gripping this issue, so the extension of the Bill to more events other than one-offs is really good. As I mentioned, however, we risk creating a two-tier ticketing system, because these rules relate to sporting events, but music and other cultural events are left waiting for a solution—a solution that was promised in the manifesto, but has not yet come. Can she give any update on when we might expect the ticket touting Bill that will set out the restrictions on who can operate in the secondary market, and how that can be more legislatively fair?
Stephanie Peacock
I am grateful to the Select Committee, and indeed the hon. Member, for their work. I really appreciated their work on major events, and I listened to most of the evidence that her Committee took. We are absolutely committed to getting that Bill on the statute book, and I will come on to that in a moment.
I am grateful to the former Minister for Sport, the hon. Member for Droitwich and Evesham (Nigel Huddleston), for all his work, and for his speech. I believe he asked why transport is not included for recurrent events. We have had a conversation about this with stakeholders, and we are confident that recurrent events already have robust transport provisions in place. This issue was raised in detail in Committee, and I have written to the relevant Transport Minister about those concerns.
I am grateful to the hon. Member for Southend East and Rochford (Mr Alaba) and my hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Chris Vince) for their support. Their speeches highlighted that major events contribute to communities across our country. The hon. Member for Eastleigh (Liz Jarvis) asked about small businesses. We draw the zone much more tightly for events such as Euro 2028 than for recurrent events, but I am happy to speak to the hon. Member about this.
Sorry, Madam Deputy Speaker, but I am going to have to take a moment—
Chris Vince
Does the Minister agree with me that it is hugely important to celebrate all levels of sport, from grassroots football clubs such as Roydon FC to the mighty Harlow Town and, of course, Leeds United?
Stephanie Peacock
I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who makes a really important point, and I am grateful to the House for its understanding.
The amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Frome and East Somerset (Anna Sabine) deal with ticketing. As I said to the Chair of the Select Committee, we are committed to tackling industrial-scale touting, but this Bill is not the place to do so. Our upcoming ticket tout ban Bill will do that.
Jim Shannon
We are very appreciative of all the work the Minister does in the Department, and we very much respect her enthusiasm and energy. We understand that she will be bringing forward legislative change that we wish to see, and we welcome that.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I believe the Minister is just about to conclude—final word.
Stephanie Peacock
Yes, Madam Deputy Speaker, and I think the hon. Gentleman makes a really important point.
We have had a very good debate on this issue, particularly in Committee, and I am grateful for the support of the whole House. We are a world leader in major events, and I commend the Bill to the House.
Madam Deputy Speaker
The Minister has done a fantastic job.
Question put, That the clause be read a Second time.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Voting in today’s deferred Divisions will now reopen in the No Lobby and continue for 25 minutes.
Third Reading
King’s and Prince of Wales’s consent signified.
Lisa Nandy
The UK has a proud record of hosting the world’s greatest sporting events, including in Glasgow and Birmingham this summer, and who can forget the 2012 Olympic and Paralympic games in London, delivered by the late and great Tessa Jowell, who is still much missed by all of us in the House? I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Droitwich and Evesham (Nigel Huddleston), who oversaw an extraordinarily successful Commonwealth games in Birmingham that really showed what this country is capable of.
In a world where too many things divide us, sport has the remarkable capacity to unite—to bring communities together and show the best of our country to the world. Perhaps its greatest power is what it can do for the next generation. I was privileged to be at the Red Roses’ historic win at the 2025 women’s rugby world cup and to see Twickenham packed to the rafters cheering them on. What made me prouder still was seeing what followed—thousands of girls taking their first steps into rugby, signing up to their local clubs and discovering what they were capable of. This is what we should always strive for.
We have some extraordinary opportunities ahead of us. When the two Tour de France grand départs come to Great Britain next summer, they will create the most accessible major sporting event our country has ever hosted. Millions of people will have the chance to get up close to some of the greatest competitors in the world, and hopefully it will inspire a new generation into cycling.
The UEFA European championship in 2028 will give us a summer of extraordinary football. We are determined that its legacy will be about much more than what happens in the stadiums across the whole of the United Kingdom. That must, of course, include great benefits for Northern Ireland.
Charlie Dewhirst (Bridlington and The Wolds) (Con)
It is a slightly technical point, but with mega-events such as those the Secretary of State is talking about, unauthorised car parking can cause major problems to the event organisers—I have been one myself—requiring traffic management systems and other measures. Do you agree that it might be appropriate to have exclusion zones around stadiums and other sporting venues? Far be it from me to deter such entrepreneurial spirit, but do you also agree that any landowner who wishes to operate an unauthorised car park should work together with the event organiser so that they can better organise those traffic management plans?
Madam Deputy Speaker
Order. Before the Secretary of State responds, I remind Back Benchers that it is not appropriate to say “you” and “yours” in the Chamber.
Lisa Nandy
I very much took the concern as being directed as me, Madam Deputy Speaker. The hon. Gentleman is right to raise it, because it can be a significant problem. Transport provisions are already in scope of the Bill, but we would be happy to work with him and others who share our concerns about making sure that events are successful if there are particular issues that arise subsequently.
The UEFA European championship in 2028 is going to be an incredible moment for our country. It is projected to deliver a sixfold return on public investment, and we are going to use this opportunity to get more people playing football, strengthen our grassroots clubs and open up opportunities right across the country. Members will also know that we have bid for the FIFA 2035 women’s world cup and the 2029 world para athletics championships. This Government are also committed to seeing the Ryder and Solheim cups hosted here.
As my right hon. Friend the Chancellor announced last week, we have committed £7 million to a detailed feasibility study for a potential bid to host the Olympic and Paralympic games in the north of England in the 2040s. This is personal for me: I grew up in the north of England, in Manchester, and I watched as we unsuccessfully bid for the Olympic games many years ago. Many people across the country told us that it could not be done—Manchester could not host major sporting events. Then, only a few years later, we went on to host a really successful Commonwealth games and show the world how it was done. Every part of this country deserves the chance to contribute to our incredibly rich legacy of major sporting events. We believe that the north of England has so much to offer, and we are determined to make sure that the rest of the world gets the chance to see that.
Underpinning all this is a belief that the benefits of hosting major events should not be confined to the host city or to those fortunate enough to secure a ticket. The benefits should be felt in towns and cities and in our schools, sports clubs and communities across all four nations of the UK. The events should inspire a generation of young people to go on and live the richer, larger lives that they deserve.
The Bill allows us to stand ready to host the biggest events in the world, to protect the integrity of those events to ensure that people can enjoy them, and to make certain that the benefits reach as far as possible. I am grateful to Members across the House who have engaged so constructively and thoughtfully with us during the passage of the Bill to improve it. I thank those who have supported our provisions, which we believe will improve the way that we host major sporting events.
I would like to thank in particular our Whip, my hon. Friend the Member for Luton South and South Bedfordshire (Rachel Hopkins), for her sterling work on this Bill. Our Whips are often unsung heroes in this place. Without them, the major benefits that we deliver to the people of this country would simply not happen.
In particular, the improvements that hon. Members have helped us to make have broadened the framework’s scope so that some of our world-class recurrent events can also benefit from its provisions. We have heard loud and clear the importance of getting the balance right to provide effective protections for major sporting events, while ensuring that the framework operates fairly and proportionately for businesses and communities. I am pleased that the safeguards are now strengthened in the Bill.
I want to address a few of the concerns that we have heard today head-on, in particular the questions about biological sex and the need to protect sporting events. I say to the hon. Member for Reigate (Rebecca Paul) that I have heard her points, and I know that she feels passionately about this issue, but I want to be clear, for the avoidance of any doubt, that participation in all events within the scope of the Bill is already based on biological sex. I do not want Members to misunderstand what we are doing through this Bill.
There were concerns raised by a few hon. Members about the prospect of sporting events being derailed by strike action. I have to say, and I hope Members will take this in the right spirit, that I could not disagree more with their proposals. It is notable that no Member could point to a single instance when a major sporting event has been derailed by strike action. When I was serving as parliamentary private secretary to Tessa Jowell, many Conservative Members raised concerns that the 2012 Olympics would be derailed by strike action. In the event, the only major disruption was when a private company, G4S, failed to deliver on its contract and the Army had to be drafted in to support. I gently say to those on the Opposition Benches that if they want to avoid strike action, the best way is to treat the workforce of this country as partners in our national endeavour and to treat them properly.
I recognise the concerns about ticketing raised by the hon. Member for Frome and East Somerset (Anna Sabine) and echoed by the Chair of the Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Committee, the hon. Member for Gosport (Dame Caroline Dinenage). I recognise the intention behind the Liberal Democrat amendment, but I want to be clear: the Government rejected the amendment not because we are anything but committed to bringing in the strongest protection for fans, whether at music, sport or other live events, but because it would have, in effect, created a two-tier system where sporting events were covered but music events were not. That dilutes a comprehensive package that we are putting forward to the House to clamp down on ticket touts and to call time on the rip off that has been allowed to go on in plain sight for too long, in order to give music, sports and other live events back to their fans. I also gently say that in 14 years of Tory Government, and in five years of coalition, no action was taken on this issue. A Labour Government will deliver it.
I pay particular tribute to our devolved partners. From the outset, we have been clear that this must be legislation for the whole of the United Kingdom. We have worked closely together to ensure that the Bill reflects that commitment and that the opportunities and rewards from hosting these events are shared across all four nations. When the world comes to our countries, it should be able to see and experience the very best of every part of our United Kingdom, of which we are so immensely proud.
Finally, I thank all of the individuals across Government who have worked hard to get us to this point. Major sporting events give us moments we remember for a lifetime, but their real value lies in what they leave behind: the communities they strengthen; the opportunities they create; the young people they inspire; and the pride that they help us share with the world. Through the Bill we stand ready to seize those opportunities and to make sure that when those moments come, the benefits belong to us all. I commend the Bill to the House.
Rebecca Paul
The Opposition will not seek to divide the House on Third Reading. We support the fundamental purpose of the Bill and believe Britain should be the best place in the world to host major sporting events. A permanent legislative framework will help us achieve that ambition. The great tragedy of this process, however, is that the Bill we have before us could have been so much more. Thanks to the work of Conservative peers, alongside others in the other place, the Bill was significantly improved before reaching this House. Yet, despite the efforts of my hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr French) in Committee and the arguments we have put forward during the Bill’s subsequent passage, the Government have failed to grasp the opportunity to go further.
In this Bill, we had an opportunity to establish clear statutory safeguards for female athletes, to protect the integrity of single-sex competition and to ensure that sporting organisations benefiting from the privileges conferred by the Bill respect the rights and safety of women and girls. Is that not what female athletes deserve? Is that not what all women deserve?
I have to say that I am shocked at the result of the vote on amendment 8. Ninety-three Members in this place voted to protect the women’s category, almost all of those Conservatives, and no Liberal Democrats voted in favour of the amendment. [Interruption.] I have huge respect for the Culture Secretary, but we do not believe this matter is covered. We know that in practice males are able to participate in competitions. As I said in my speech on Report, we know that the London marathon is considering including male pacemakers, yet the London marathon is meant to be covered by the Bill. We also have the numerous issues at FIFA level. Therefore, with respect, I do not believe that the issue is covered. It is gut-wrenching that a rare chance to address those concerns has been squandered by those on the Government Front Bench, many of whom still struggle to articulate what a woman even is. It will now fall to a future Conservative Government to do what is necessary to protect the fairness and integrity of women’s sport—and the House should make no mistake, we will do it.
For now, we can add sport to Labour’s long list of safeguarding failures for women and girls. It has refused to move the dangerous men unlawfully held in women’s prisons, dragged its feet on the grooming gang inquiry, stood by as nurses are harassed by the NHS for not wanting to undress in front of males, and refused to stop the PATHWAYS puberty blocker trial, which would cause irreversible harm to hundreds of children. Yet Labour has the gall to say that reducing violence against women and girls is one of its priorities. I am afraid that actions speak louder than words. Time and again, the Government have the chance to do the right thing, and time and again they do not. For them, party will always come before country.
Equally disappointing has been the Government’s refusal to address properly the threat of industrial action disrupting major sporting events. I struggle to see the logic in legislating to protect ticketing arrangements, commercial interests and advertising rights, but stubbornly refusing to take action on the strikes that could bring those same events to a standstill. What good are all the commercial protections if spectators cannot reach the stadium and an event that has taken years to organise is thrown into chaos by union bosses looking for their next bit of leverage? We all know why the Government will not support that: they cannot upset their union paymasters. I hope they all declared their interests today while they do their paymasters’ bidding.
With all that said, we will not stand in the way of the Bill becoming law. We recognise the benefits it will bring and the considerable work that has gone into improving it. However, the Government will know deep down that this was a missed opportunity to deliver something considerably more meaningful. The Bill will almost certainly make Britain better equipped to host major sporting events, but sadly, it does not make Britain a better place for a female athlete to compete, and that is a terrible shame.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed, with amendments.
Railways Bill (Carry-over Extension)
(1 day, 6 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
14:34 - The House divided: - Ayes: 279 / Noes: 139 - Question accordingly agreed to.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Simon Lightwood)
I beg to move,
That the period on the expiry of which proceedings on the Railways Bill shall lapse in pursuance of paragraph (13) of Standing Order No. 80A shall be extended, so that the period expires at the end of 29 April 2027 rather than at the end of 4 November 2026.
The Railways Bill places passengers back at the heart of our railway. By establishing Great British Railways it provides a framework to ensure a robust, high-quality offer for passengers, including disabled passengers, to instil confidence in our railways and to attract more people to use them. Great British Railways will also ensure that we harness the economic and environmental opportunities of rail freight, underpinned by two statutory duties related to freight. Great British Railways will be tasked with maximising freight growth in a sustainable way, providing confidence to freight customers and the wider sector that the industry is being prioritised.
Great British Railways will also ensure that the needs of communities up and down the country are considered at every turn. A bespoke partnerships framework will require Great British Railways to work hand in hand with local authorities to ensure that local communities receive the services they need.
As hon. Members will be aware, this legislation is currently undergoing scrutiny in the other place. It is important that that work continues and that the Bill reaches the statute book. The motion simply ensures that Parliament has sufficient time available to scrutinise the Bill. With that in mind, if hon. Members wish to raise any specific concerns, I invite them to do so in writing to my Department, where I am sure my colleague the Rail Minister will be more than happy to respond.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Goodness, I thought we had a Rail Minister in front of us. I call the shadow Secretary of State.
Mr Richard Holden (Basildon and Billericay) (Con)
The Labour Government brought a Bill to this House incomplete, late, like a student late with an essay, handing in half-baked work well after the deadline, hoping nobody would notice, with half the answers missing—that is why we are back here. Presumably the Department is taking inspiration from the Education Secretary. They have run out of time, missed the deadline, and now they are back for more. They have had a year, but what on earth have they been doing?
We are here because the Labour Government have once again shown whose side they are on: not on the side of working people—who they cannot even define—but on the side of their union paymasters, on whose coffers they depend. Who are the unions to Labour? An army of sugar daddies they cannot do without, picking up the tab for Labour MPs, and when the unions call, Labour cannot say no. This lot will ride roughshod over our railways just to fulfil their weird ideological obsessions and, more importantly, those of their union backers.
How do we know that? We look at their Bill. Whose interests does it support? Is it the passengers, whose fares are set to rise next year, thanks to the Chancellor sneaking it through on the last page of the Budget? Is it rail freight, which faces being squeezed off the tracks, slice by slice, under the weight of more costs and less access to tracks? Is it the taxpayer, who must foot the bill for this barefaced indulgence in ideology? No, it is Labour’s union bosses pursuing an ideology that has been abandoned by Japan and by every railway in Europe but is still there in the Labour party in the UK.
There used to be an order to how this worked, which was uniquely British. The unions rocked up at No. 10, and after a genteel chat over some Chablis—they might have pretended it was beer, sandwiches and pork pies, but there was always white wine and smoked salmon—they left with giant pay rises. Labour could not negotiate to save their lives—forget an actual meeting or even the pretence of a negotiation. That is all that has to happen these days; it is like ordering a takeaway the old-school way. It’s “Dial a rise”—the unions pick up the phone and demand what they want, as if they were ordering a curry for tea.
The Bill has been delayed because the Government’s union pals were worried. I know worrying about saving taxpayers’ money is an alien suggestion to Labour: whenever it gets a new Prime Minister, it seems contractually obliged to go back to the unions and chuck in a whopper of a pay rise so that they do not ruffle feathers in the latest leadership election. That is what the First Secretary of State, the right hon. Member for Sheffield Heeley (Louise Haigh) provided—back in those heady days when she was the Transport Secretary, before she had to resign due to forgetting she had admitted to being convicted of fraud—and that is what this Prime Minister has done as well.
Let us be clear: these delays have caused huge issues for taxpayers already on the hook for God knows how much, and huge issues for investors in our railways. This is no way to govern, it is no way to legislate and it is no way to respect this House. But maybe, just maybe, the Government will use the thinking time they will get if this motion passes to dwell on how to protect our open-access services, such as the Hull Trains direct service from Selby to London, rather than screwing them over with their “GBR or else” mobster-style manoeuvring. It is not good enough.
It is not good enough for passengers, whom the Secretary of State seems to expect to be out on the streets clapping and banging pots and pans in support every time the Government change a seat from one ironing board to another at the taxpayers’ expense, every time they paint a train red, white and blue—or Burnham yellow in Manchester—and every time they put up a clock. On this side of the House, we see a Bill that is most certainly not good enough for the taxpayers who must fork out for all this grandstanding while the service gets more expensive. That is what this Bill promises. Yes, it delivers certainty, the certainty of a service that will be worse: more trains delayed, more cancellations, more delays and more short-form trains. We see that already with the services being taken under state control. On this side of the House, we will not be voting to carry that forward. Rather than backing the Government’s union paymasters, we will be backing taxpayers and passengers instead.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Marvellous! Have we got the Liberal Democrat spokesperson? Marvellous! Olly Glover, come on!
Olly Glover (Didcot and Wantage) (LD)
Yes, I am very much here, Madam Deputy Speaker.
Goodness me! How am I to follow that? I wonder how many other people have managed to get “sugar daddies” into Hansard. Congratulations to the shadow Secretary of State on that.
Nothing has changed with this legislation, as of yet, so our grave concerns remain. Of course, we hope that the deliberations of our noble Lords will lead to some improvements, and we look forward to seeing those at a later date. My only question to the Minister is: why has it taken so long to deliver this Bill? He is quite right to say that the opportunity for scrutiny is important, and that is welcome, but by my analysis, there have been some unexplained gaps, including one and a half months between Second Reading and Committee, and a four-month gap between the Committee concluding and Report. There was also a two-month gap in the Lords between Second Reading and Committee. I very much hope that the Secretary of State did not procure HS2 or East West Rail to project-manage this Bill, but perhaps the Minister will tell us he is considering introducing some form of parliamentary delay-repay scheme.
Simon Lightwood
What a truly bizarre performance by the shadow Secretary of State. I hope that it makes more sense with subtitles. He should not give up his day job, because he would make an absolutely lousy comedian.
The Railways Bill puts passengers back at the heart of our railway by establishing Great British Railways, and provides the framework to ensure a robust, high-quality offer for passengers, including disabled passengers, and to instil confidence in our railways and attract more people to use them.
Question put.
Deputy Speaker’s Statement
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Voting in today’s deferred division will now reopen in the No Lobby and continue for two minutes. [Interruption.] We see a Secretary of State running out.
Cyber Security and Resilience (Network and Information Systems) Bill (Carry-over Extension)
(1 day, 6 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Creative Industries, Media and Online Safety (Ian Murray)
I beg to move,
That the period on the expiry of which proceedings on the Cyber Security and Resilience (Network and Information Systems) Bill shall lapse in pursuance of paragraph (13) of Standing Order No. 80A shall be extended, so that the period expires at the end of 29 April 2027 rather than at the end of 11 November 2026.
The UK is subject to daily and unrelenting cyber-attacks, as cyber-criminals and state-linked actors blackmail businesses, steal data and threaten our very way of life. As our lives become increasingly digital, the threat comes not only from hostile actors, but from weaknesses in the resilience of our systems. We must defend against both and focus our attention where it matters most.
Although all businesses should secure themselves against cyber-attack using the National Cyber Security Centre’s free toolkits, it is right that we do not over-regulate every business. That is why the Bill is targeted at our most essential and critical services, relating to drinking water, health, transport, energy and the digital services that keep our economy running. If these services were disrupted, we would have nowhere else to turn. The Bill safeguards those services and, in turn, protects the individuals and businesses that rely on them. That is the priority of this Government.
We will not hesitate to take action when hostile actors seek to do us harm. The Bill delivers a step change in national security and equips the Government with the powers to act decisively on threat intelligence. This Government have gone further still; we have tabled amendments to introduce a new vendor risk management framework, which will assist businesses in reviewing their supply chains and working with the Government to mitigate those risks, and it will, if necessary, enable Government to step in and instruct organisations to take action.
This week, the Bill re-entered the House after completing Third Reading in the other place on Monday 2 November. I pay tribute to the Minister, the noble Baroness Lloyd, as well as Members of this House and the other place for engaging so constructively throughout the Bill’s passage. In many instances, the contributions have refined the Bill and made it more robust. I know that hon. Members will continue this constructive dialogue in their consideration of Lords amendments, and will pass a Bill that is fit to deal with the cyber-threats that we face now and in future.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
Victoria Collins (Harpenden and Berkhamsted) (LD)
The Liberal Democrats absolutely support this motion, but it is my democratic duty to highlight some things that I would love the Government to consider as we make this extension.
Let us look locally, nationally and internationally. In July, Hertfordshire county council raised its cyber-security risk to the maximum score on its register, 25 out of 25. That is exactly the kind of risk that this Bill should manage, yet the Bill excludes local authorities, even though they hold social care records on some of the most vulnerable people. Less than a fortnight ago, 32 Government services went offline while Departments patched critical flaws in widely used web software. That shows just how vulnerable the heart of our nation’s digital infrastructure and security is. On Sunday night, hackers attacked dozens of supermarket refrigerators and freezers in seven European countries, raising their temperatures to 50°C and spoiling millions of euros-worth of produce. That is the food we all rely on every single day, and the National Cyber Security Centre has warned:
“The UK’s cyber resilience is not yet where it should be.”
Our framework must not fall behind those of our closest neighbours. We should deepen co-operation with European Union agencies and member states. In a digital world, isolation only increases risk.
Those examples lay bare the crucial importance of the Bill and the devastating cost to businesses, consumers and our national security if we fail to get it right. The Bill cannot simply react to yesterday’s threats; we must ensure that our critical national infrastructure is prepared for the future, which means addressing over-reliance on high-risk foreign technology, and tackling the rapidly escalating threat of cyber-attacks powered by artificial intelligence, and on the internet of things, which is embedded in so much of what we use.
Digital sovereignty underpins everything else. We can no longer ignore the risks of over-reliance on American and Chinese technology, or rely on hostile, unpredictable states for our critical infrastructure. More than half of central Government organisations now run most of their systems on the cloud, and that all sits with just two companies, both American. The Government are the UK’s largest buyer of technology, but they almost never buy British. Since 2023, Palantir has won more than £420 million in public contracts across the national health service, the Met, the financial regulator, a city council and the Ministry of Defence. The latter’s £240 million contract was awarded without competition. Palantir is also an approved supplier on six public sector buying frameworks with a combined value of more than £9.7 billion—a route into Whitehall, the NHS, the police and our local councils.
Martin Wrigley (Newton Abbot) (LD)
Does my hon. Friend agree that it is a travesty that Palantir is not on the strategic suppliers list maintained by the Cabinet Office?
Victoria Collins
I thank my hon. Friend for that. There is so much that highlights that this is the wrong approach from our Government, and that we need to look not only at our suppliers, but at the importance of backing British technology. We believe that a digital sovereign strategy would change things. We need to back British innovation, reduce our dependencies and make our critical systems more secure. We need to look at each level of the tech stack and have a strategy that is right for the UK. I put that proposal to this House in June through new clause 13, which received cross-party support, but the Government and the Conservatives voted it down.
Sovereignty is not about doing this alone; it is about working globally while backing British. It is about becoming and staying world leaders in technology. It is about securing high-quality digital infrastructure that embeds us in global supply chains and makes the most of our incredible talent and skills. That would give us international leverage, not isolation. The Government say that sovereignty is covered by Departments across Whitehall, and last week’s Budget put another £60 million in the sovereign AI fund, but a venture fund and a patchwork of departmental reports are not a strategy.
The new powers on high-risk vendors in clause 44 allow the Government to react once a risky supplier is already in our system, but a strategy needs to be proactive. It needs to build British capability so that we never get to that point. Even industry is calling for a strategy, so I urge the Government to bring forward their own amendments on digital sovereignty.
Secondly, amendment 107, which passed in the Lords—a Cross-Bench amendment that Liberal Democrat peers supported—requires a review within a year of Royal Assent, and every year after that, of whether the regime is working, which sectors it covers, the supply chains, the regulators and the AI Security Institute. Given the fast pace of change in cyber-security, we urge the Government to support the amendment and to look at expanding the scope to local government, which holds our electoral rolls and our social records, and to retail, because a country that cannot feed itself is not resilient. We welcome the Government’s commitment in the other place to reviewing whether all critical national infrastructure sectors should be covered by this legislation and the Network and Information Systems Regulations 2018.
This week’s NCSC review warns that AI-powered malware is highly likely to be used in ransomware attacks on our critical infrastructure by 2028, yet there is still no clarity on who oversees AI in our cyber-defences: a single regulator, the AI Security Institute, or another body that is exactly right for the task. Our constituents and businesses need that clarity, because where there is trust in the regulatory environment, there is investment. People need to trust the technology; that is both pro-business and pro-society.
The Government need a plan for who does what, and they need it sooner rather than later. As Europe calls for a leaders’ summit on AI, I call again on the Government to convene a global AI summit, and to look towards an international AI safety agency, headquartered in the UK and modelled on the International Atomic Energy Agency, with a global treaty on pausing the development of super-intelligent AI.
Finally, none of this works unless those who are expected to deliver it can work. Small and medium-sized enterprises make up 99.8% of UK businesses and are often the most vulnerable link in the cyber-supply chains. This week’s discount on Cyber Essentials certification is welcome—the Liberal Democrats called for that—but it is time-limited; it ends in March, and the certificate must be renewed every year. Even the NCSC calls it only a starting point. SMEs need real support from a cyber-security support service when they are hit, to give them clear guidance.
On Second Reading, I compared this Bill to a house with stronger fences and a better alarm, but with its back door left wide open. The past few days alone have shown us why closing that door matters. I urge the Government to consider our amendments, for the communities and councils who rely on critical infrastructure, for the businesses integrated into every supply chain, and for every family who expect the services that they rely on to be there when they need them. We support the carry-over motion.
Alex Ballinger (Halesowen) (Lab)
It a pleasure to follow the Liberal Democrat spokesperson, who raised a number of important points, particularly about Palantir operating in the national health service. I support this carry-over motion, which will allow Parliament to complete its work on legislation that is vital to our national security, our civil preparedness and our economic resilience. Having completed its Lords stages earlier this week, the Bill is now within reach of the statute book, and the need for its protections is increasingly urgent. Just yesterday, the chief executive of the National Cyber Security Centre warned us:
“The cyber threat has increased faster than our defensive capabilities”.
The threats are increasingly obvious. As the hon. Member for Harpenden and Berkhamsted (Victoria Collins) mentioned, this week, nine countries have been attacked; supermarket fridges were turned up to 50°C, ruining millions of pounds-worth of food. That comes on the back of attacks against French supermarkets only three weeks ago. The National Cyber Security Centre’s review describes Russian intelligence exploiting routers to target critical infrastructure, widespread disruption caused by Iranian proxies and the ever-expanding reach of Chinese cyber-espionage.
These operations form a fast-evolving hybrid threat to our economy and the infrastructure on which our essential services depends. For those of us in the west midlands, last year’s attack on Jaguar Land Rover brought these threats right to our doorstep. Production lines ground to a halt, orders were disrupted and suppliers placed under crushing financial pressure. The cost of the attacks was estimated at £1.9 billion and while the Government responded quickly, providing a £1.5 billion loan to help sustain JLR and its supply chain, the best response and the best protection we can give businesses is prevention.
JLR’s ordeal underscores the need for the Bill and the changes it makes to the 2018 framework, requiring IT service providers, data centres and other critical bodies to meet rigorous cyber-security standards, strengthening incident reporting and giving the Government the power to respond to national security threats. For Halesowen and the west midlands, these changes would boost the resilience of businesses, keeping them trading and production lines moving, and data centres and livelihoods secured, so I support the motion so that we can complete this legislation promptly and put its protections into practice as soon as possible.
Ian Murray
I welcome the comments made by the Liberal Democrat spokesperson on this incredibly serious issue and look forward to her bringing them back when we actually have the debate, beyond this carry-over motion. I hope she will support the carry-over motion so she can make her speech again.
My hon. Friend the Member for Halesowen (Alex Ballinger) mentioned JLR and other high profile issues of a serious nature. That allows me to briefly give a big message to all businesses in the country that cyber-security is also their responsibility—it should be in every boardroom, at the top of every agenda, to ensure we are not having those incidents. As my hon. Friend, said prevention is better than cure. The National Cyber Security Centre has all the free tools available, so I encourage every single business—micro, small, medium and large—to use those tools to ensure they are as secure as they possibly can be. Of course, we cannot stop all cyber-attacks being successful, but we can minimise the risk as much as possible and make sure that it is everyone’s responsibility.
David Chadwick (Brecon, Radnor and Cwm Tawe) (LD)
During the evidence collection process, lots of experts from the cyber-security sector called for board accountability to be reintroduced into the Bill, as it is in similar legislation in the European Union. Will he give us his thoughts on why that has not been included?
Ian Murray
The Liberal Democrat spokesperson mentioned the same European Union regulations. We need to do what is in the best interests of businesses in the United Kingdom. The message is pretty clear that all businesses must have cyber-security at the top of their agenda—it should be in every boardroom and we keep encouraging them to do so.
Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)
Madam Deputy Speaker, you missed out on me making a very long speech, so you are very lucky. Will the Minister briefly touch on what liability there will be for frontier model providers, such as OpenAI, who breach their duties, for example I am thinking of the Hugging Face incident in July 2026?
Ian Murray
My hon. Friend from Harlow—I am surprised he did not mention Harlow in his contribution, so I thought I had better put it on the record or otherwise he will be struck out—makes a good point. However, we can also see that AI provides a good solution to this problem. Because of the PHP incidents in the past few weeks, we have identified that there were holes in that particular system and then those holes were patched and plugged, so while AI is a big cyber-security problem, it is also a big part of the solution. This Bill is here to give us better cyber-security and better resilience across all our economy.
Question put and agreed to.
Petitions
(1 day, 6 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate
Ben Goldsborough (South Norfolk) (Lab)
For many years, residents in Newton Flotman have lived with unsafe junctions on the A140. Five awkward junctions in a 500 yard stretch of the A140 are causing chaos and confusion, and they are a serious risk to safety. Over 500 residents who have signed this petition believe road improvements are urgently needed to protect motorists and pedestrians in Newton Flotman. The petitioners
“therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government to encourage Norfolk county council to commit to upgrading the junctions on the A140 with Flordon Road, Short Street, Old Street and Cargate Lane, and to improving safety for road users.”
Following is the full text of the petition:
[The petition of residents of the constituency of South Norfolk,
Declares that the junctions on the A140 with Flordon Road, Short Street, Old Street and Cargate Lane are unsafe and pose a risk to motorist and pedestrian safety; and further declares that upgrades are needed to improve the safety of these junctions.
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government to encourage Norfolk County Council to commit to upgrading the junctions on the A140 with Flordon Road, Short Street, Old Street and Cargate Lane, and to improving safety for road users.
And the petitioners remain, etc.]
[P003247]
Valerie Vaz (Walsall and Bloxwich) (Lab)
This petition is presented on behalf of the residents of Walsall and the United Kingdom to raise the issue of the proposed secondary school on Reedswood Park, an important community space and former golf course. The development would result in the irreversible loss of valuable green space and natural habitat, while increasing the existing pressure on the surrounding infrastructure, with concerns relating to traffic congestion, limited parking capacity and road safety.
If a new secondary school is required—the data suggests it is not—alternative sites may be available, including the former Sneyd school site. There were 2,062 signatures to an online petition, and the petitioners are therefore calling on the Government
“to ensure that in considering proposals for a new secondary school, full weight is given to the environmental, transport and community impact of development at Reedswood Park and to consider whether alternative sites may provide a more appropriate location.”
Following is the full text of the petition:
[The petition of residents of the United Kingdom,
Declares that Reedswood Park is an important community green space and that 2,063 signatories to a separate online petition oppose plans to build on the park for a new secondary school; further declares that the proposed secondary school development would be located on part of the park formerly used as a golf course; further declares that the development would result in the irreversible loss of valuable green space and natural habitats supporting local wildlife; further declares that the surrounding infrastructure is already under significant pressure, with concerns relating to traffic congestion, limited parking capacity and road safety; and further notes that, if a new secondary school is required, alternative sites may be available, including the former Sneyd School site.
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government to ensure that, in considering proposals for a new secondary school, full weight is given to the environmental, transport and community impacts of development at Reedswood Park, and to consider whether alternative sites may provide a more appropriate location.
And the petitioners remain, etc.]
[P003256]
Zarah Sultana (Coventry South) (Your Party)
I rise to present a petition on behalf of residents of Coventry South regarding Coventry city council’s contract with Palantir. More than 3,900 people have signed a related online petition. In September 2025, Coventry city council awarded Palantir a contract worth £500,000 to provide AI-related services in children’s services. The contract was renewed in February 2026 at a cost of £750,000, a 50% increase, bringing the total to £1.25 million.
There are serious concerns about Palantir’s involvement in military and immigration operations, including providing surveillance infrastructure to the Israeli Government, which are committing genocide in Palestine, as well as the handling of sensitive personal data and the growing privatisation of our public services. The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government to call on Coventry city council to terminate its contract with Palantir, to consult residents and trade unions and to ensure transparency, accountability and democratic public control over the use of data in our public services.
Following is the full text of the petition:
[The petition of residents of the constituency Coventry South,
Declares that Coventry City Council has renewed a £750,000 contract with the US firm Palantir for children’s services; further declares that there are serious concerns about Palantir’s involvement in military and immigration operations, including its provision of data surveillance infrastructure to the Israeli government, which is committing genocide against Palestinians in Gaza, the handling of sensitive personal data, and the increasing role of private technology companies in public services; and further declares that Coventry residents, council staff and recognised trade unions should have a meaningful say in decisions concerning the use of AI and data in local public services before a contract is agreed and renewed.
The petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government to call on Coventry City Council to terminate its contract with Palantir; consult residents and recognised trade unions on future AI and data decisions; and ensure transparency, accountability and democratic public control over the use of data in Coventry’s public services.
And the petitioners remain, etc.]
[P003257]
Strategic Licensing Regulations: London
(1 day, 6 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Rachel Blake (Cities of London and Westminster) (Lab/Co-op)
I am grateful for the opportunity to raise this matter this afternoon, and I thank the Speaker’s Office for granting this debate.
I am sure I am not the only Member of Parliament to have had a late night, to have spent time in Bar Italia as a young person, or to have enjoyed the wonderful culture of central London, whether at the Royal Albert Hall, the Theatre Royal, Haymarket or the Soho Theatre. The west end’s history and culture is synonymous with the openness, creativity and diversity that define modern London. However, I am the only Member of Parliament to represent the communities in the Cities of London and Westminster. Few places have contributed more to our cultural life, and few places demonstrate more clearly the importance of striking the right balance between supporting a thriving night time economy and making sure that residential communities can also thrive.
I represent some of the most vibrant, economically critical and culturally significant communities in the country, from the City of London to Pimlico, from Covent Garden to Marylebone and from Fitzrovia to Soho. These are the places that help power London’s economy and define our global reputation, and they are also places where people live, where people enjoy their own lives and where people bring up families. They enjoy their homes and the internationally renowned nightlife that exists alongside them. Many of them raise families there, they sleep there, and they expect to have a meaningful say over decisions that affect their neighbourhoods and their quality of life. That balance between a thriving city and a liveable city is at the heart of any licensing policy, and it is why these regulations matter.
Let me be clear at the outset of this debate: I support devolution; I support economic growth; and I support thriving communities. And I support the principle that genuinely strategic issues may require a strategic voice. I also recognise that the Government’s final regulations that they published a few weeks ago are narrower and more objective than many feared they might be. The Government have rightly moved away from the broader and more subjective approach originally proposed. Concepts such as economic importance, reputational importance and strategic geography have not been adopted. Instead, the regulations rely on statutory criteria based on venue size, operating hours and licensing classifications.
Deirdre Costigan (Ealing Southall) (Lab)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this important debate this evening—this afternoon, even! Does she welcome the fact that the Mayor of London will still need to take into account the four strategic licensing objectives in coming to any decision: protecting public safety; protecting children and young people; preventing public nuisance; and preventing crime? Does she also note that there is a facility for people to then appeal the Mayor of London’s decision if at that point they do not agree with it?
Rachel Blake
I thank my hon. Friend for her intervention. She makes a powerful point about the overriding significance of the four licensing objectives. Public safety and preventing crime are critical objectives, and they mean an awful lot to my constituents.
These criteria provide greater certainty for residents, businesses and local authorities alike. However, Parliament should still ask whether the thresholds now adopted reflect the expectations created during the consideration of the parent legislation. During the passage of the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Act 2026, Ministers repeatedly described these powers as exceptional, carefully constrained and a measure of last resort. The House of Lords approved the principle before seeing the detailed definition. Parliament has now seen both the regulations and the accompanying guidance. It is therefore reasonable now to ask whether the practical operation of these powers will remain consistent with those assurances.
Joe Powell (Kensington and Bayswater) (Lab)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this important debate. She makes a very good point about how the criteria have been drawn. The Kensington Society in Kensington and Bayswater has estimated that 45% to 50% of venues that currently have a licence would be between D and E, which is what is specified in the secondary legislation. So they obviously have concerns that that volume could generate a whole set of call-ins for things that would not really be considered strategic by any sort of common understanding. Does my hon. Friend have a similar concern about the volume, particularly for that licensing band in part A of the relevant statutory instrument?
Rachel Blake
My hon. Friend makes a very good point about the number of premises that will be affected in central London by the statutory instrument as it was laid down. A large proportion will be open to this call-in power and that raises a really important question about whether City Hall is expecting to be able to call in that many, and indeed whether it would want to, and whether that fits in with what most people would consider a strategic intervention. I will come on to some questions for the Minister about how we might closely define a strategic intervention and monitor what a strategic call-in power might look like. We do have to ask whether the practical operation of these powers will remain consistent with the expectations during the passage of the Bill.
The concern today is not whether strategic powers should exist. There are many places across London that are of strategic significance to our future as a successful world city—and Parliament has already settled that question, and I recognise that. The concern today is whether strategic powers will remain genuinely strategic.
For communities such as Soho, where hospitality, culture and late-night activity are an integral part of the area’s character, a significant number of applications might fall within the category of strategic importance, and that really matters in Westminster and in the City of London. The City of Westminster contains around 4,000 licensed premises, with nearly half located in the west end and in St James’s ward, and I have some figures that I think are going to be really interesting for everyone present. I know everybody will be really pleased and interested to hear that 1,000 premises are licensed to 11 pm, 1,692 to midnight, 478 to 1 am, 131 to 2 am, 221 to 3 am, 22 to 4 am, 19 to 5 am and—this is really neat—24 premises open until 6 am so they are more like 24-hour premises. It is really important for everybody to acknowledge the number of premises that are open into the later hours, making sure that we are a truly global world city that is welcoming to people who want to be entertained through the night.
Of course, that concentration of licensed activity is unparalleled anywhere else in the country, and therefore even small shifts in licensing policy can have significant consequences not only for residents and local businesses, but for London’s wider cultural and night-time economy. That is precisely why Parliament must be confident that powers described as strategic remain genuinely strategic in practice.
Residents therefore have a reasonable question: if large numbers of applications—as my hon. Friend the Member for Kensington and Bayswater (Joe Powell) has drawn attention to—are potentially eligible, where is the line between a strategic exception and a routine intervention?
That leads to perhaps the most important point: being eligible for a call-in is not the same thing as being called in. The regulations determine which applications may be considered by the mayor. They do not require the mayor to intervene. The revised section 182—of Licensing Act 2003—guidance now provides greater clarity about the operation of the new regime. It establishes a London-wide framework, confirms the mayor’s strategic role, and explains how call-in powers are intended to operate.
But the publication of guidance does not in itself answer the practical questions that matter most to residents and local authorities. How many applications do the Government expect to qualify each year? How many call-ins does the mayor expect to make? How many venues across London are likely to fall within scope? On what basis will potentially eligible applications be selected for intervention? What evidence informed the thresholds that have been chosen? Those questions remain important because the impact of the regime will depend not on what may be called in, but on what is called in.
The City of London Corporation has also raised concerns about the practical implications of the new arrangements, and about the scale of applications that could potentially fall within scope, and local authorities across London continue to ask many of the same questions as residents. When will these powers be used? What criteria will guide the decision to call in? How will strategic considerations be balanced against local evidence? These are reasonable questions, and they deserve answers.
One of the strongest concerns I hear from residents is about local democratic control. Throughout the passage of the parent legislation, Ministers rightly spoke about neighbourhood voice, community empowerment and maintaining a strong democratic basis for decision making. The revised guidance itself emphasises the importance of community involvement in licensing decisions and the opportunities for local residents to have their say. Yet many residents still ask a simple question: if a resident speaks at a local licensing hearing, presents evidence on crime, noise, antisocial behaviour, dispersal and residential amenity, What democratic links exist between that participation and a subsequent determination by City Hall? Residents have every right to expect a meaningful voice in licensing decisions that affect where they live.
Licensing decisions often depend on highly local evidence about noise, crime patterns, dispersal routes and residential amenity. Anyone who has attended a licensing hearing, as I am sure many of us here this afternoon have done, will know that these cases frequently turn on detailed local knowledge of a particular building, street or neighbourhood. That local knowledge matters, and Westminster’s experience demonstrates that clearly. Soho’s success depends on getting the balance right between supporting culture, hospitality and economic activity and protecting the people for whom Soho is home.
What additional rights will residents have when an application is called in? How will they be able to make representations directly in a mayoral determination? What weight will be given to evidence heard by local licensing committees? How will borough licensing committees remain primary decision makers, rather than advisory bodies? How will the Government assess whether the new arrangements are strengthening, rather than weakening, community empowerment? My purpose here is not to argue against strategic objectives, to challenge the important role of London’s nightlife in its economic growth or to challenge these powers in principle; my focus is on safeguards, transparency and accountability. That is why I will continue to press for five practical measures.
First, we need clear public guidance from the mayor on the circumstances in which call-in powers will be exercised and what factors will inform those decisions. Secondly, we need annual transparency reporting, rather than waiting two years for the first statutory review. Thirdly, we need publication of every call-in decision with full reasons. Fourthly, we need meaningful opportunities for resident participation in every mayoral determination. Finally, we need the publication of annual data, broken down by local authority area, showing how many applications became eligible, how many were called in and which criteria triggered the intervention. If these powers are genuinely intended to be used sparingly, there should be no objection to that degree of transparency.
London’s success depends on maintaining the balance between growth and community. Soho’s success depends on maintaining the balance between being a world-famous destination and a place that people proudly call home. Residents deserve confidence that local voices will continue to matter; Parliament deserves confidence that powers described as exceptional will remain exceptional; and we all deserve confidence that implementation will match the assurances that Ministers gave when these powers were first proposed.
It is my responsibility as the Member of Parliament for Cities of London and Westminster to stand up for centuries-old communities who live side by side with thriving nightlife. I am absolutely determined that they will do so into the future, and I look forward to hearing what the Minister has to say.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Housing, Communities and Local Government (Jim McMahon)
I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Rachel Blake) for securing this important debate and for the significant effort that she has put into representing her constituents on this matter over a long period of time; I know how much it matters to her and to them. Hopefully I will address the points that she has made in the course of her speech, but I know that this will not be our final conversation on the issue, nor should it be.
This is about how we balance competing interests. We must recognise that London is a global city and acts as a draw, but it is also where people live and are part of a community. I know that my hon. Friend is trying to strike that balance. The new strategic licensing arrangements came into force yesterday. They give the mayor a strategic role in licensing across the capital, with a duty to publish a London-wide policy and a power to call in certain applications of potential strategic importance. Before I address their impact, it is important to explain the problem that the reforms are intended to solve.
London’s hospitality, cultural and night-time economy is central to the capital’s success and its appeal as a global city, but licensing decisions can have implications that extend beyond a single premises or borough, affecting London’s wider economy, cultural offer and international reputation. Individual boroughs are rightly focused on their local circumstances, and these reforms are intended to complement that local expertise with a strategic role for the mayor where an application may be significant to London as a whole. The aim is not to set local and London-wide interests against each other, but for them to complement each other. The aim is to support a licensing system that is capable of balancing those interests fairly while continuing to protect residents and uphold the licensing objectives.
Let me start with residents and the concerns that my hon. Friend has rightly raised on their behalf. I want to be clear that the protections at the heart of the licensing system remain unchanged. The four statutory licensing objectives—the prevention of crime and disorder; public safety; the prevention of public nuisance; and the protection of children from harm—continue to apply. Those protections apply equally where the mayor intervenes. Any application that is called in will still be determined in accordance with the Licensing Act 2003 and with regard to the importance of promoting those objectives, while residents and other interested parties will retain their existing ability to make representations on individual applications. Residents have also had the opportunity to respond to the mayor’s consultation on his new strategic licensing policy, which will set out the wider framework for his strategic licensing role.
Alongside those opportunities for residents to make their voice heard, the new arrangements include specific transparency requirements around the mayor’s new strategic role. Advertising requirements will ensure that residents are informed when an application is identified as being potentially strategically important, and, if the mayor intervenes, of the decisions taken. There are clear lines of accountability. Mayoral directions remain subject to the existing rights of appeal, and where a direction is appealed, the mayor is legally responsible for defending it. Overall, residents will retain the protections at the heart of the licensing system, and transparency and clear accountability are built into the mayor’s new strategic role.
Let me turn to London’s licensing authorities. I recognise the concerns about what the mayor’s new role could mean for local decision making, as well as the additional responsibilities that it will place on licensing teams. I should reiterate that local licensing authorities will remain the default decision makers. They will continue to receive applications, consider representations, hold hearings where necessary and determine applications in the first instance. The mayor’s new role does not replace those core functions; it provides an additional strategic role for applications that meet the relevant criteria, with call-in decisions remaining discretionary.
Deirdre Costigan
The Minister makes a point about supporting local authorities in London. Will he commit to ensuring that local authorities are included in the two-year review of this measure? Will he look at the potential new burdens funding that might be required for local authorities?
Jim McMahon
I will come on to the new burdens funding shortly. I will mention in a short while the built-in review periods and the approach to those that she asks about.
The new arrangements will require some additional information sharing with the Greater London Authority. Those requirements are largely based on information that authorities already collect or have access to through the normal licensing process. Even so, we recognise that meeting those requirements may come with additional costs. The Government will therefore conduct a full new burdens assessment to ensure that local licensing authorities are appropriately reimbursed for new costs resulting from these powers.
We recognise that the new system will place demands on the GLA. It has been preparing for its new responsibilities, in addition to recruiting additional resources to support the operation of the new regime. Our aim is simple: to keep boroughs at the heart of decision making on licensing while ensuring that both they and the GLA are equipped to ensure that the new system works effectively.
Rachel Blake
Will the Minister comment on the part of the process where the Greater London Authority makes the decision to call in applications? As I discussed in my opening remarks, we know that there is quite a broad pool of eligible premises. I believe that my residents have a concern about how the decision to call in will be made and the transparency around that decision. They are concerned that some types of premises or premises operating in particular areas might seek to get that call-in, so we really seek transparency on that issue.
Jim McMahon
I will talk through that process shortly, and also cover what the criteria for potentially strategically important venues mean. I need to reiterate, though, that although keeping boroughs at the heart of licensing decisions is important to us, so too is ensuring that the system supports London’s wider growth.
That brings me to businesses and the central purpose behind the reforms: better supporting London’s hospitality and night-time economy. A thriving hospitality sector is fundamental to London’s success as a global city. We want a licensing system that gives responsible operators greater confidence to invest, adapt and grow. Giving businesses that confidence means ensuring that the new process does not create unnecessary delay or uncertainty, which is why the regulations establish clear statutory deadlines and procedures.
To address a point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster, the call-in power is designed to support a more enabling approach to licensing, rather than giving the mayor a means to block or further restrict applications. An application granted as applied for cannot be called in. Where the mayor intervenes, any conditions he imposes cannot, in his opinion, be more restrictive than those imposed by the licensing authority, and he can only direct that an application be rejected where the authority has itself rejected it. We believe that those protections and safeguards strike the right balance. They are intended to ensure that the new strategic role supports growth without creating unnecessary delay or uncertainty for businesses, while maintaining important protections for residents and the local community.
I now turn to the point about sites that are potentially strategically important to Greater London. As has been said in the debate, we have built in a requirement for the mayor’s call-in power to be reviewed after two years, and then at least every five years thereafter. I am happy to take away the particular point about the role of local authorities in that review process and confirm in writing the position.
To summarise one of the bigger concerns, because the scope of premises can feel quite wide, there is a concern that the proposal creates a completely double-run system—a process on top of the local licensing authority. In supporting this proposal and the new licensing regime, it is not our expectation as a Government that all the premises that are in scope will be called in by the mayor for a strategic decision. Our expectation is that most of them will go on as normal, and for them to be called in by the mayor, they would have to meet at least one of the criteria set out in law.
We believe that these reforms get the balance right between protecting local residents and communities and recognising that in many ways, London’s night-time economy is unique. Many people come to London not only to work and shop, but to experience the night-time economy—our theatres, bars, restaurants and nightclubs.
Joe Powell
I thank the Minister for his important clarification of the Government’s intention. Does he also accept that there is a big difference in rateable values between inner and outer London? One of the concerns of inner-London MPs such as myself and my hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Rachel Blake) is that, almost by definition, we will end up with more venues in the potential call-in zone compared with outer London. That clarification for inner London is therefore particularly important.
Jim McMahon
We will need to see how that works in practice, because I think it could work both ways. I recognise that rateable values might be lower in outer London than in inner London, but that reflects the economic benefit that premises in inner London bring—that is why the business rates bill ends up being higher. It would be reasonable for the mayor to say that, for that reason, such premises clearly have a more important role to play than those of the same nature in an outer-London borough that might look the same on the outside. Those premises can play quite different roles economically in their contribution to the wider night-time economy, so that can probably work both ways.
Although I recognise all the concerns that have been raised, I believe that these reforms strike the right balance. They recognise London as a global city and the wider considerations that that brings, but balance that with the need to ensure that our local licensing authorities are empowered and their status is respected. I think we have set out how we will do that. Indeed, the extraordinary concentration of restaurants, music venues, theatres and nightlife in these areas is part of what makes them such attractive places, not just to visit but to live. That is why we should not treat the interests of residents and those of the hospitality sector as inherently opposed. These reforms are intended to balance them fairly, supporting responsible businesses and London’s wider growth while preserving the important role of boroughs and their accountability to local communities.
Rachel Blake
The Minister should be aware that some of the organisations where residents come together to represent their communities celebrate the nightlife in their neighbourhoods. Some have come together to support the re-establishment of particular celebrated nightlife venues, such as G-A-Y in Soho. I wanted to make it a matter of public record that many residents are clear about their passion for a lively nightlife, while balancing that with the residential character of an area.
Jim McMahon
My hon. Friend reinforces how it is not about putting residents in one basket and visitors from outside the city in another. Everybody benefits from a place that is thriving and active, where people feel welcome and that there is something for everyone. That is the balance we are trying to strike. I know from speaking to all the local MPs in the area who have made representations that that is very much the balance they are trying to strike, too. I commit to continuing our communication. I am keen to understand how the new arrangements work in practice and to hear from local experiences, and I know that Members will continue to make the case.
The regulations require the Secretary of State to review how these new arrangements are working in practice and to publish a report within two years of commencement. Further reviews, as I said earlier, will then be published at least every five years thereafter. It is not the case that these arrangements will be introduced and then simply left in place. Their impact will be kept under review, allowing us to assess how the system is working in practice for London businesses, licensing authorities and residents alike. That is the balance we are trying to strike. I once again thank my hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster for securing this important debate and for her continued work supporting local residents.
Question put and agreed to.
Draft Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures Act 2011 (Continuation) Order 2026
(1 day, 6 hours ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Jo White)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures Act 2011 (Continuation) Order 2026.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Twigg. The order provides for the continuation of the Secretary of State’s powers under the Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures Act 2011, otherwise referred to as TPIM powers. The continuation is for a further five years.
The Government take all necessary steps to protect the public. The threat we face from terrorism is enduring and evolving. It is vital that we have the tools necessary to keep our country safe, which include the powers conferred on the Secretary of State in the Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures Act 2011. These measures ensure that, to protect the public from a risk of terrorism, when prosecution or deportation are not possible the Secretary of State can impose specified restrictions and requirements on an individual involved in terrorism-related activity.
Section 21 of the Act states that the Secretary of State’s TPIM powers will expire at the end of five years from the date the Act was passed. Having been renewed twice in 2016 and 2021, those powers are due to expire at the end of 13 December 2026. Given the continuing threat to the UK from terrorism, there can be no doubt that TPIMs remain a vital component in the UK’s counter-terrorism toolkit. That position is supported by the independent reviewer of terrorism legislation, the Investigatory Powers Commissioner and the director general of the Security Service.
The Act provides the Secretary of State with powers to impose a TPIM notice on an individual if the conditions set out in section 3 of the Act are assessed by the Secretary of State to have been met. Those conditions include that she reasonably believes that the individual is, or has been, involved in terrorism-related activity, and that she reasonably considers that it is necessary, for purposes connected with protecting members of the public from a risk of terrorism, to impose such measures on the individual.
In addition to the power to impose a TPIM notice, the Secretary of State has powers to extend and vary a TPIM notice that is in force, and to revive a TPIM notice that has been revoked. Since the introduction of the Act in 2011, 33 TPIMs have been imposed. As of the last published set of figures from June to August 2026, four TPIMs were in force.
TPIMs provide some of the most restrictive measures available in the democratic world. That is why they are used sparingly and only in exceptional cases involving individuals assessed to present the highest levels of terrorism-related risk, where prosecution, deportation or other disruptive measures would be insufficient to protect the public. There are also stringent safeguards, including that the Secretary of State must be satisfied that all conditions are met and apply to the Court for permission to impose the TPIM notice, except in cases of urgency. A TPIM notice is subject to a review hearing at which the Court reviews the Secretary of State’s decisions that the conditions were met and continue to be met. The Act also provides a right of appeal in relation to specified decisions taken after its imposition.
Having consulted as required by the Act, the Home Secretary has, due to the significant terrorist threat facing this country, decided to make this statutory instrument to provide for the continuation of TPIM powers for a further five years—the maximum period allowed in the legislation. The UK has one of the strongest counter-terrorism frameworks in the world, and the Government are committed to ensuring that it remains robust, to tackle the threat from terrorism and keep the public safe. TPIMs are an essential component of this framework, and their continued necessity has been endorsed through the statutory consultation the Department has undertaken.
Blake Stephenson (Mid Bedfordshire) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Twigg. I thank the Minister for her comments and for extending the powers set out in the 2011 Act.
Protecting our country from terrorism is a central responsibility of Government. The public deserve to be safe from these heinous acts. Our commemorations this year marking 25 years since the 11 September attacks—the deadliest terrorist attack for British citizens in our history—should serve as a constant reminder of this solemn duty. Every attack, whether it is the Manchester Arena bombing, Lockerbie, 7/7, Omagh or an array of other dreadful attacks, should prompt us to pay tribute to all those who have lost their lives in the service of our country by dedicating ourselves to preventing such atrocities from happening again. [Interruption.]
Blake Stephenson
Stopping terrorism underpins everything we do in this place, as those who seek to alter our politics using violence fuelled by hateful ideology cannot be allowed to operate in our country. As the head of MI5 recently stated,
“The protection of democracy—its institutions, its representatives, its principles—has never felt more vital.”
While we look back, the past year is a reminder of the threat posed by terrorism at this very moment. The decision to raise the threat level to “severe” followed intelligence assessments and appalling attacks against members of our Jewish communities. I will be cautious about referencing specific recent cases that have involved people being charged and hostile states. However, to use just one example, earlier this year two Islamist extremists received life sentences, and a third received a prison sentence, for their role in a terrorist plot intended to target the Jewish community in Greater Manchester, which was foiled through the outstanding work of our police forces.
Against that background, I can say with certainty that we agree with the continuing use of the powers. They are serious powers, as the Minister said, and ones that must be used appropriately. When the renewal period for TPIMs was instituted, the late Conservative Minister James Brokenshire rightly noted the safeguards that the House continues to put in place when voting to renew the powers, but also recognised that they were sadly likely to continue to be necessary for the foreseeable future. Unfortunately, those comments remain accurate today.
These are serious, restrictive powers available to the Government. Therefore, I understand that they are rightly used sparingly as a tool of last resort, as the Minister outlined. According to the independent reviewer of terrorism legislation’s previous report, TPIMs were applied only 33 times between the introduction of the Act in 2011 and 2024, with only four active applications in the last quarter. While I would not want to ask the Minister to comment on specific cases, do the Government need to take a different approach given the increase in the terrorism threat level to our country?
As with all powers, some questions remain, including those arising from previous comments by the independent reviewer of terrorism legislation that were noted by the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee. However, we must equally listen to the previous assessment of the independent reviewer, alongside the views of the Investigatory Powers Commissioner and the director general of the Security Service, all of whom have agreed that TPIM powers should be renewed.
When the renewal order for the powers was brought forward in 2021, the then Opposition rightly supported the Government’s efforts. Our support therefore continues in the same vein, recognising that it is imperative for all of us to ensure that the resources and powers necessary to protect the public are in place.
Edward Morello (West Dorset) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mr Twigg. The Liberal Democrats support this statutory instrument, which extends the Secretary of State’s powers under the Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures Act for a further five years.
The Liberal Democrats opposed the previous control orders regime introduced in 2005 because indefinite house arrest, restrictions on internet access and forced relocation without a criminal trial raised serious concerns about human rights and civil liberties. TPIMs were introduced by the coalition Government to provide a more proportionate approach, balancing national security with individual freedoms. Allowing them to expire would remove an important capability for managing individuals who present the highest levels of terrorism-related risk. As the Minister highlighted, the extension is supported by the independent reviewer of terrorism legislation, the Investigatory Powers Commissioner and the director general of the Security Service. We therefore support the continuation of these powers.
Jo White
I thank all members of the Committee for being here today. We greatly appreciate the scrutiny provided on this important issue. If the Secretary of State’s TPIM powers were to expire, that would remove a critical counter-terrorism capability used to manage individuals who present a significant national security risk. Subject to the agreement of the House and the other place, the order will come into force at the end of 13 December.
The use of TPIMs must be necessary and proportionate. The tool is used as a last resort in circumstances where prosecution or deportation are not possible. The operation of the TPIM Act 2011 is subject to independent statutory review under section 20. The independent reviewer of terrorism legislation’s most recent report, “The Terrorism Acts in 2024”, was published on 29 April 2026 and is publicly available on gov.uk. The independent reviewer of terrorism legislation is currently Jonathan Hall KC, who supports the continuation of the TPIM Act 2011. His previous recommendations on TPIMs included amending legislation to prohibit a TPIM subject from possessing unauthorised weapons. That amendment was made under the Crime and Policing Act 2026.
I urge all Members to support this order to keep the public of the United Kingdom safe and retain the strength of our counter-terrorism framework.
Question put and agreed to.
Petition
Local Government Reorganisation in Devon
Westminster Hall
(1 day, 6 hours ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Violence against Women and Girls: Smart Glasses
(1 day, 6 hours ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Anna Sabine (Frome and East Somerset) (LD)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered smart glasses and violence against women and girls.
A few months ago I was delighted, with the support of many women in the urban design industry and the Minister for Housing and Planning, to get women and girls mentioned in the national planning policy framework. Across the UK, 86% of women and girls aged 18 to 24 have experienced harassment in public spaces, and it seemed crazy to me that they were not going to be at the forefront of how we design those spaces and places.
Having won that victory just before the summer, I was horrified to see stories about AI glasses appearing all over the press. Adverts for smart glasses appeared across London. Online, celebrities sold them as a device to “stay in the moment” and enjoy “effortless connection”. A key selling point was that the glasses could be used to film discreetly. To me, that did not look like a fantastic new innovation; it looked like a device for filming women and girls without their knowledge in the very spaces we have been campaigning to make them feel welcome in. Planning policy had finally accepted that women’s safety matters in the spaces we build, but at the same moment technology was eroding women’s privacy and safety in those same spaces.
Sales of smart glasses are now soaring, and already my fears about their use are being realised. Women are reporting waking up after nights out to find that videos of them, filmed without their knowledge or consent by men wearing smart glasses, have gone viral online. The only indication anyone has that they are being filmed is a small LED in the corner of the glasses, but that is quickly disappearing, with “ghost Meta” shops offering to remove the light entirely so that no one in a public space knows they are being filmed. To me these devices not only have the potential to erode safety and privacy in public spaces, but raise really important questions about consent.
A few weeks ago, I met the campaign group Stop Smart Glasses. One of its campaigners is a secondary school teacher, and he told me that as part of his job he stands in front of teenagers and teaches them that consent must be sought proactively—that yes means yes and no means no. But increasingly those same children go home, pick up their phones and scroll on social media, where they see videos of girls who were filmed without even being asked or knowing. He pointed out the irony that if one of his female students is filmed by AI glasses in public, the onus is on her to approach the man doing the filming and ask him to stop. What are we teaching young people—that consent is something we learn in the classroom and abandon on the street?
Covert filming is not new, and my hon. Friend the Member for Bath (Wera Hobhouse) has done excellent work on tackling the problem in nightclubs and other public spaces, but smart glasses make it easier, and harder to detect and challenge. In Australia, one solution has been to ban the use of smart glasses in certain areas, such as swimming pools, but I feel that sends a message to women that they are safe only in certain places. Surely, we do not want that to become the case.
Waking up to a video of yourself online undermines perceptions of safety, but it is also a breach of privacy and raises real data protection concerns. According to Meta’s smart glasses terms of use, content captured by the glasses can be used to train Meta AI. The burden of consent allowing Meta to do that is placed on the person wearing the glasses. That means that if someone is filmed without their knowledge or permission, Meta can still use that content to train its AI, because the wearer has given de facto consent. I do not see how that squares with data protection law. GDPR says that companies need a proper reason to use our personal data, and an individual walking past someone wearing smart glasses in the street has not agreed to anything. Small discreet cameras make secret filming easier, and women and girls will be disproportionately impacted by that. More broadly, in the age of wearable tech, all of us, male or female, are losing a bit of our privacy every time we step outside. Despite that, I have heard nothing from the Government about how smart glasses should be regulated.
When I raise this topic in public, one main argument comes back as a justification for smart glasses: they provide huge benefits for people with accessibility requirements, including blind and partially sighted people. I completely understand that point of view. I met the Royal National Institute of Blind People a few weeks ago to hear from it directly. It was very clear that although technology can offer huge benefits to its community, it does not want to become a fig leaf for Meta to justify poor practice and surveillance technology, and that its members have the same concerns about the technology as everyone else. Furthermore, Meta glasses have not been made with blind people in mind. If they had, they would be vastly better at accommodating the range of needs that those with disabilities might have.
These glasses pose a threat to everyone’s safety and privacy in public spaces. Meta and other developers are breaching everyone’s right to privacy, while failing to be transparent about what they are doing with the data they have collected. As in so many other areas of life, this modern technology will undoubtedly have a heightened impact on violence against women and girls.
On Monday, I sat in this room for a debate on the social media ban, and it struck me how long all Governments of whatever flavour have put off acting on social media, even though the evidence of harm has been there for years. I do not want smart glasses to go the same way, where we only regulate once it is too late. We are only 50 days from Christmas, and we can expect these glasses to be sold everywhere in numbers. How can we put the genie back in the bottle once they are being worn everywhere? We have called for them to be banned on the parliamentary estate, but frankly, everyone deserves the same privacy that we should enjoy in this place.
I look forward to the debate, and I am thankful to everyone who has attended. I hope to hear from Members across the House who are concerned about the use of smart glasses and from the Minister, to understand what the Government intend to do about this potentially dangerous new technology.
Shivani Raja (Leicester East) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Wishart. I thank the hon. Member for Frome and East Somerset (Anna Sabine) for securing this debate and for her remarks, which summarised the concerns and challenges around this important topic very clearly.
This debate comes at an important time. We live in a time of rapid technological advancement, which is exciting but also must be safeguarded. We have seen how these developments can threaten the safety of our women and girls with deepfake videos, stalking and monitoring devices, and wearable tech such as smart glasses. The hands-free technology of smart glasses promises crucial assistance to visually impaired people across the country, but the promise must be backed up with the right precautions and protections. We should not restrict law-abiding citizens from using this technology where it causes no harm to others. Our responsibility is to ensure that the innovations do not outpace the very protections that keep our women and girls safe in public spaces.
Unlike smartphones, which are clear and visible when in use, camera-enabled smart glasses allow covert recording to take place at eye level, completely disguised as regular human eye-to-eye contact. For many women who are already navigating public spaces with extra vigilance, that creates real unease. Ministers have rightly set out that recording individuals without consent in order to cause alarm or distress or for sexual gratification falls under existing criminal offences such as harassment and voyeurism. The legal position is clear: anyone who misuses this technology to intimidate or harass women must feel the full force of the law.
The real issue, however, is enforcement. Proving intent when someone is covertly filmed on a bus or a high street is incredibly difficult, and once that footage hits the internet, the damage to a victim’s privacy and dignity is already done. Expecting victims to rely on post-hoc takedown requests under GDPR or the Online Safety Act 2023 places the burden entirely on the wrong shoulders.
Alex Easton (North Down) (Ind)
Will the hon. Member join me in praising the work of the Police Service of Northern Ireland through initiatives such as Project Vigilant, which targets technologies that are used to abuse women and girls, and calling for greater research to support our police across the UK in identifying covert recording technologies, as that remains an operational hurdle?
Shivani Raja
The hon. Gentleman is right: we must view this issue in the context of the wider challenges of violence against women and girls.
The Government have pledged to halve violence against women and girls, which I wholeheartedly welcome, but warm words must be backed by actions. It was concerning that the Government missed their own deadline to publish their VAWG strategy on three separate occasions. Women and survivors deserve better than delayed timelines. Now that it has been published, the Government must ensure the law is strongly enforced so that perpetrators are caught and punished.
Technology should enrich our lives, not serve as a tool for covert harassment. I urge the Minister to work with manufacturers on basic safety-by-design standards such as mandatory untamperable recording lights on smart frames, and to ensure that our police forces have the digital tools needed to keep the women and girls in our communities safe and sound.
Edward Morello (West Dorset) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mr Wishart. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Frome and East Somerset (Anna Sabine) on securing this timely and important debate on a subject that she has been campaigning hard on.
Smart glasses are a new technology that, despite their benefits for accessibility, provide yet another way for people to secretly film, promote and broadcast violence against women and girls. We have not even got a grip on the violence that is already being filmed and shared using mobile phones.
Every woman and girl, wherever she lives and whatever her circumstances, has a right to feel safe. She should not have to worry that someone is secretly recording her, following her or waiting for an opportunity to capture a moment of violence and turn it into entertainment for other people. More than 10% of women in England have experienced online violence, and among women aged 16 to 24 the figure rises to 25%. Digital abuse follows women into schools, workplaces, homes and communities.
I will once again share the story of Isabella, a 15-year-old girl from my constituency. In May 2025, she was lured to a local cemetery in Lyme Regis, where a group of young people were already waiting for her. The attack was premeditated. Someone had a phone ready and began recording before Isabella even arrived.
Isabella knew the person who attacked her. Her head was smashed against a concrete step, and she was stamped on repeatedly and kicked in the face. While that happened, nobody stepped in to help her. Rather, they stood by, filmed, laughed and asked for the video to be sent to them. That video was circulated across schools in Beaminster, Bridport and Lyme Regis. Children who were not there—some who did not know Isabella—watched her brutal attack on their phones. The violence was shared, forwarded, replayed and discussed. Her humiliation was repeated in classrooms, corridors and group chats.
The attacker received anger management classes and a six-month restraining order, but the person who filmed the attack was not punished at all. Someone had planned to record a young girl being brutally assaulted. They were ready when she arrived. They chose to film, not help, and they helped to turn the attack into something that could be watched again and again.
Mr Gregory Campbell (East Londonderry) (DUP)
The hon. Gentleman is outlining an appalling incident. Does he agree that we need to do what we can to get a societal change so that the friends, associates and families of those who carry out such activity, whether using smart glasses or mobile phones, understand that it is totally appalling and unacceptable and that they will be made to feel like the pariahs that they are in society?
Edward Morello
I thank the hon. Member for his intervention. There is a societal conversation to be had about this behaviour, but there is also a question about regulation and whether the law is appropriate.
In December 2025, ongoing bullying forced Isabella to leave Beaminster school in the middle of year 10. She had only recently started her GCSE courses. She moved schools, but the same subject options were not available, so she had to change courses and catch up on four months’ work. Isabella still experiences flashbacks and anxiety in loud and crowded places. Her mother said to me:
“I have to live with knowing that the video will be forever available on social media.”
Isabella was filmed on a mobile phone. She was not attacked by someone wearing smart glasses, but her experience shows the world we already live in and the consequences of allowing technology to amplify violence and humiliation. If we cannot properly protect victims now, how can we possibly be confident that we will protect them when filming becomes even more discreet? Smart glasses risk creating yet another avenue for covert filming, whether that is secretly recording women in public, filming sexual harassment or capturing assault. The victim may not even know that they have been recorded until the footage appears online.
The Youth Endowment Fund’s 2025 “Children, Violence and Vulnerability” survey found that 70% of children had encountered violent content on social media, up from 55% in 2022. More than four in five have seen online conversations about harming specific groups. Among children involved in perpetrating serious real-world violence, 84% had engaged in online discussions about harming particular groups. Twenty-five per cent of children said that violent content had been promoted to them by social media platforms, and just 6% had actively searched for it.
Social media platforms’ algorithms are pushing real-world violence, much of it against women and girls, towards children. We know that these companies have the technology and the ability to remove content quicky: when copyrighted music appears in videos, it can be flagged and removed almost immediately because there is money at stake. The question is, why is the same urgency not being applied to violence against women and girls?
When a video shows a girl being brutally attacked or a woman secretly filmed, the protections too often fail the people who need them the most. We need a specific criminal offence covering the premeditated filming and distribution of violent attacks where the intent is to humiliate, distress or psychologically harm the victim. The law must recognise that the person holding the camera or wearing the smart glasses can be responsible for deliberately extending the abuse, even if they never physically touched the victim. Social media platforms must be properly regulated, so that they are forced to act immediately when violent footage involving women, girls and children is reported. The platforms must take action against accounts that deliberately distribute it. I hope the Government will act before it becomes too late.
Shockat Adam (Leicester South) (Ind)
It is an honour to serve under your chairship, Mr Wishart. I congratulate the hon. Member for Frome and East Somerset (Anna Sabine) on securing this important debate.
I declare my interest as a practising optometrist. For my whole working life a pair of glasses has been my livelihood, and it has been nothing but an object of trust and good, allowing people to see and changing their lives. It is one of the most trustworthy pieces of clothing we could have. No one has ever been deceived by a pair of glasses, except perhaps when Clark Kent prevented us knowing he was Superman. My son likes to wear glasses with no lenses, so he can look very intelligent posting on social media with books in coffee shops. It is a matter of debate how convincing that is, but generally glasses are a product for good.
I am not a technophobe. I have seen in my practice, and that of colleagues, what this technology can do, as has been acknowledged by hon. Members. It can be used for good. More than 2 million people in this country live with sight loss and 250 more begin to lose their sight every day. For a blind or partially sighted person walking down the street to be able to ask their glasses what is front of them and hear that, for example, a van is unloading scaffolding, is genuinely life changing. I will not argue that we should take that away—I suspect nobody here would—but we cannot ignore what is happening.
It has been reported that more than 7 million pairs of one brand alone were sold last year in this country. We have all witnessed men using these glasses covertly on our streets, posting the footage online and then demanding money to take it down. There are reports of women being filmed during sex without knowledge or consent. As the hon. Member for Leicester East (Shivani Raja) mentioned, a small LED is supposed to warn of recording, but it is easy to miss. I sell these glasses and know it is not always possible to see the lights.
John Slinger (Rugby) (Lab)
I am not familiar with the glasses the hon. Member is discussing, but it strikes me, as a lay person, that it would not be difficult to cover a small LED on a pair of glasses. Does he agree?
Shockat Adam
I absolutely agree. We must ensure that they are tamper-proof. Somebody will always create something to supersede technology, which I will come to. A woman cannot move away from a camera if she cannot see it.
I also want to consider what these glasses could do in school changing rooms. We know children can be cruel. It could be devastating to record a child—girl or boy—in their insecure period, upload the footage and threaten them with blackmail.
Harm does not stop at the wearer. It was reported earlier this year that workers paid to label footage for AI training were viewing intimate recordings captured by these devices, including people using the toilet. The people in the footage had not consented and were not aware that it was being used for training purposes.
The National Centre for Violence Against Women and Girls and Public Protection told us last month that at least one in five flagged online VAWG crimes are image-based abuse, with almost 75% of the victims being female. Every digital form of this abuse is rising, yet when we ask how many arrests have been made for covert filming, the answer is that the information is not held centrally, so we are legislating in the dark. I would like a response from the Minister on that point.
This abuse is not restricted to cameras, because hearing technology is now arriving in spectacle frames. Hearing glasses with directional microphones are already in our practices, and the patients starting to lose their hearing are often the same patients who are fitted with varifocal glasses. Again, I welcome that because live captions, conversation boosting and real-time translations are incredible. I tried the technology and even though I was in a noisy room, it did not just help me hear the conversation I was having—I was able to hear somebody else’s conversation on the other side of the table. If we take all that into account, we have facial recognition, which manufacturers are reportedly exploring, and a device that can know who we are, where we are and what we say without us even knowing it is there. The wearer knows they are using the device; people around them do not.
What is the law doing about that? Filming in public is generally lawful and data protection laws do not apply to individuals acting in a personal capacity, but the Information Commissioner has said that doxxing is largely outside their remit, wearables are not regulated in any particular category and the Government’s own violence against women and girls strategy does not mention smart glasses. As Doughty Street Chambers put it,
“English law was not written with this technology in mind”.
The industry already knows what is good. At this year’s 100% Optical, EssilorLuxottica, which makes the Ray-Ban Meta glasses, told practitioners that devices should show people nearby that they are in use, that encryption is
“not nice to have, but an absolute must”,
and that only necessary data should be collected.
Anna Sabine
While I welcome the suggestion that nearby users should be notified if the devices are in use, the point still stands around consent. It should not be on me as an individual to have to challenge people using them; they should have to seek my consent before they start filming me.
Shockat Adam
I agree wholeheartedly with that. We cannot leave this issue to good will; it belongs in the law. I do not believe in a blanket ban, as it would punish the disabled people who benefit most. The RNIB is right that blind and partially sighted wearers already fear hostility from people who cannot tell they have sight loss. However, no ban should not mean no action.
I ask the Minister to consider the following: putting a statutory duty on manufacturers to provide a clear, tamper-proof recording indicator and making it an offence to turn that off or sell products designed to defeat it. Secondly, we need to close the gap in the criminal law so that covert sexualised filming and posting it for whatever reason is clearly an offence, and bring the intimate image provisions of the Crime and Policing Act 2026 fully into force without delay. Thirdly, we must give survivors a fast and affordable route to redress, as the Women and Equalities Committee recommended. Fourthly, we must protect accessibility for those who need to use the technology for assistive purposes, as they should not be penalised. Fifthly, if we are not already, we need to collect national data on covert filming offences and include smart glasses and other sensing wearables in the violence against women and girls action plan. My profession has a part to play, too.
We are told that the harms of social media were unforeseeable; these harms are not. They are right in front of us—quite literally at our eye level. Let us act on this issue before it is too late.
Pete Wishart (in the Chair)
I call Jim Shannon—you have up to half an hour.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
Half an hour; I was hoping it might be 28 minutes. I am not going to speak for 28 minutes; I will try to keep my contribution as succinct and focused as possible.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Wishart and I thank the hon. Member for Frome and East Somerset (Anna Sabine) for setting the scene incredibly well. This subject has to be discussed and highlighted, and the debate has given us the opportunity to do that.
This matter strikes at the very heart of the safety, dignity and privacy of our citizens, and most notably the protection of women and girls in our communities. We stand at a crossroads where technological innovation is outpacing our moral and legal safeguards. If we do not act, the consequences will continue to be felt by the most vulnerable on our streets. Other Members have made that point incredibly clear and I thank them for that.
Let us look first at the scale of what we are dealing with. We are not talking about a niche gadget or a far-off futuristic concept as some may think. The figures are stark. It is estimated that hundreds of thousands of these smart glasses have already been sold right here in the United Kingdom. They are flooding the market, and they are sitting on the faces of everyday passers-by—people we do not know. Although many people wear them innocently, we cannot blind ourselves to the reality that these devices are a powerful tool of surveillance, masquerading as ordinary eyewear.
As we rightly focus our efforts on eradicating violence against women and girls, we must recognise how this technology changes the very nature of harassment, stalking and intimidation. That is not just my observation; the UK’s leading domestic abuse charities are also sounding the alarm, and they are clear in what they say. Refuge has given the example of perpetrators weaponising these gadgets to covertly track and film survivors—the hon. Member for West Dorset (Edward Morello) clearly illustrated that—which has contributed to a horrifying 62% spike in tech-facilitated abuse. Furthermore, Women’s Aid has forcefully stated that pairing these glasses with AI facial recognition threatens the very safety of all women and girls and hands a digital toolkit to stalkers who want to identify and track strangers in real time without their knowledge.
For a woman walking down the street, the fear of being targeted is already a daily reality, but now the horror of upskirting is being magnified by technology that is completely hands-free and virtually invisible. A person could commit an act of visual violation without ever holding a phone, leaving the victim entirely unaware that her privacy, her dignity and her body have been captured and digitised.
Mike Martin (Tunbridge Wells) (LD)
The hon. Gentleman cited the figure from Refuge that referrals to its tech abuse team have increased by 62%. He said that we are at a crossroads, but it seems to me that we are already past that. To echo what my hon. Friend the Member for Frome and East Somerset (Anna Sabine) said, this is an exact reflection of what happened with the social media ban: the Government are going to come along too late. We need to emphasise that smart glasses are an aggravating factor in humiliation and abuse, and we need more wraparound regulations to tackle this problem right now.
Jim Shannon
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. The threat is already here. The hon. Member for Frome and East Somerset has taken the opportunity to ask the Minister for legislative change in today’s debate, which is something I am also hoping for. I look forward to the Minister’s response, and I welcome her to her role. She has been in Westminster Hall for two days running—it is becoming a habit, but it is a good habit to have.
Even more sickening are the reports from communities across our regions—tales of perverts sitting on benches at children’s play parks or walking dogs casually outside school gates. Under the guise of just going for a walk and looking around, wearing what appears to be standardised prescription lenses, these individuals can be recording very young girls and women. School safeguarding leaders have already issued urgent alerts to teachers and parents, because these sleek, modern frames make it near impossible to detect when a child is being filmed. The tiny indicator lights on these devices make a mockery of consent. They are easily covered up, as the hon. Member for Rugby (John Slinger) said, with a bit of tape or a sticker. How are mothers, teachers or young girls supposed to feel safe when any stranger standing near a playground could be covertly documenting them and what they are doing? This is not just a nuisance anymore; it is a direct threat to public safety and an engine for child exploitation.
Let me clear: I am not a man who stands against progress. Innovation, when properly challenged, can be a force for immense good, and we have to recognise that. We see that in our invaluable national health service. Our dedicated district nurses, who travel the length and breadth of our communities to provide care to the vulnerable, are piloting these glasses for a good purpose. For them, the ability to stream real-time footage to a specialist consultant while treating a patient in their home is a magnificent breakthrough. That is one of the good things that modern technology can do. It saves lives, saves time and improves care.
But the fact that a tool can be used for good does not mean it should be given free rein in society—that is what this debate is about. The contrast is clear: those who use these glasses in the NHS, such as our district nurses, should be able to do so, under a strict, regulated licensing framework. Their devices must be fully auditable, restricted to secure clinical networks and bound by the highest standards of professional conduct and patient consent. We cannot allow the positive uses of technology to blind us to its profound capacity for abuse. Innovation cannot come at the cost of the safety of our daughters, wives and mothers. We need robust regulations and clear boundaries, and we must ensure that the law firmly protects women and girls from those who would use these devices to prey on them.
Marie Goldman (Chelmsford) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Wishart. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Frome and East Somerset (Anna Sabine) for securing this crucial debate. As we have heard, smart glasses can pose a very real threat to the safety and personal privacy of women and girls in particular. Smart glasses, combined with the ease of communication and anonymity provided by social media, have offered a new avenue for gender-based harassment. Recordings of women and girls taken without their knowledge or consent can be livestreamed or uploaded and distributed online with far too much ease.
The initial harm of an in-person encounter is then compounded by social media algorithms. Quick to follow are abusive online commentary, online stalking and other technology-facilitated harassment. All that translates to real-world harm. Reporting in the past week by London Centric illustrates how perpetrators are getting away with it. The publication found that, if these so-called content creators film themselves approaching a different woman every day and post the videos on platforms such as Instagram and TikTok, they can receive millions of views, earn money from them and face no legal consequences. The police are aware, but they are simply working within the law—in this case, law that was written in the last century.
The Protection from Harassment Act 1997 requires repeated harassment of an individual to reach the threshold for prosecution. However, harassing behaviour of the sort committed by those who are non-consensually filming women, such as those with smart glasses, is allowed as long as the women are only filmed once. To be frank, the current law makes this area the wild west when it comes to privacy and online abuse. It does not matter that the same harassing behaviour is replicated against potentially dozens of women. All that currently matters in law is that it is not done repeatedly to the same woman. As such, this disgusting behaviour is not only legal but profitable—it is monetised misogyny, plain and simple.
Those who claim, as the men filming these videos do, that it is “just a bit of fun”, need only read about the impact a few seconds of non-consensual filming has on the women who are victims of it. In one case, London Centric reported on a woman who, after being filmed without her consent by a “content creator”, described how other men have since entered her workplace, where she was recorded, to ask her whether she knows that she is “TikTok famous”. Other women have moved away from London altogether after being non-consensually filmed.
John Slinger
The hon. Lady is making a compelling speech. Does she agree that, in addition to the need perhaps to change the legislation and for greater enforcement, there is a huge amount of work to be done around education? I am afraid that education needs to be done for men and, sadly, boys. The statistics are clear: 91% of people prosecuted for sexual offences are men aged 18-plus. Does she think, as I do, that we need to be in schools and in the spaces where men and boys are talking, to explain to them just how disgusting this behaviour is and that it will have consequences?
Marie Goldman
The hon. Member makes an important point, and I agree, but we have to go after those who promote and normalise this behaviour—by which I mean the online platforms. They are essentially broadcasters. Reaching a mass audience, for example through television, used to mean having to have a broadcasting licence and being held to a high standard; but the online platforms get away with promoting disgusting, misogynistic content over and over again. People see it, so it becomes normalised.
John Slinger
The hon. Lady is being generous with her time. I reassure her that I completely agree that we need much tighter regulation of the social media companies. Frankly, the tech bros have had it too easy and too good for too long. We ought to find a way of holding them responsible and liable in law for some of the harms that their products cause, rather than merely suggesting that the users of their products are liable. Does she agree that we need to explore some of those concepts?
Marie Goldman
It seems that across the House we entirely agree on this matter.
Shockat Adam
In addition to the platforms, the manufacturers have a responsibility here. Does the hon. Member agree that manufacturing must come with greater responsibilities?
Marie Goldman
Absolutely, and I thank the hon. Member for his important intervention, which proves what a difficult and complex subject this is. Everybody has a role to play, not just the victims. As my hon. Friend the Member for Frome and East Somerset said, it is important that we do not leave this matter just to the victims, but to manufacturers, broadcasters and social media platforms, as well as the so-called content creators—I struggle with that phrase, because they pose as content creators, but they make a lot of money out of this. That is one of the disgusting things; it is monetising misogyny, as I have said. Everyone has a role to play, and we must focus on that.
As we have seen, legislation is falling woefully behind advances in technology such as smart glasses and changes in behaviour on social media. When we legislate, we need foresight about what might come later, not just what is happening now and what happened in the past. We need to write legislation in that way. I urge the Minister to review the effectiveness of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997, to ensure that the harassment loophole that I described is closed. I am sure she does not doubt that these examples are indicative of harassing behaviour, not least because social media feeds often show the same video to the same user over and over again.
Every woman and girl, regardless of who they are or where they live, has the fundamental right to live free from fear, harassment and violence—but, to ensure that that is a reality, not just a slogan or aspiration, we have to act decisively. As my hon. Friend the Member for Frome and East Somerset said, the problem is not a lack of understanding of the issue. We can take simple steps right now to mitigate this misuse. We must begin by enforcing hardware-level standards to ensure that smart glasses are tamper proof, as other hon. Members have said. We must ban modifications that disable or remove the recording indicator, as well as those that might cover it up—a bit of electrical tape might do the job, as others have suggested, and that should not be okay either. We must also expand the scope of sexual harm prevention orders to prohibit completely the purchase or use of smart glasses by sex offenders, where appropriate, including as a condition of release.
The problems with emerging technologies do not exist in isolation. They are amplified by and rely on social media. I implore the Government to take stronger action to hold to account the social media giants—the companies that do not just facilitate, but promote this content. Stories such as those detailed in London Centric would not exist if not for the impunity with which these companies currently operate. Profit must never be placed above the safety and dignity of our citizens.
We should have ensured that Ofcom had the powers and legal backing to enforce accountability years ago. It must be equipped to prevent smart glasses-enabled abuse online, with tangible consequences for the companies that fail to comply. The Liberal Democrats have also called on the Government to create a new online crime agency to effectively tackle illegal content and activity online, and build a digital world where women and girls can live safely and without fear.
As we have heard, it is important that we acknowledge that developments in technology can still be harnessed for the better. Smart glasses act as genuinely life-changing technologies for blind and partially sighted people. As we have heard, by providing hands-free access to information, object recognition and descriptions of surroundings, they can dramatically increase an individual’s personal independence. However, that is all the more reason for action. As other hon. Members have mentioned, the Royal National Institute of Blind People has reported that users are becoming increasingly hesitant to wear smart glasses for fear of a backlash and of others becoming angry or suspicious towards them. Preventing smart glasses from being used for predatory and covert filming will not only protect women and girls from abuse but help to protect legitimate users from suspicion so that those who benefit from this technology can use it with confidence.
I hope the Minister will take very seriously today’s cross-party calls for much stronger action to tighten the law to prevent the monetised online harassment of women and girls, to give Ofcom real teeth to regulate social media companies and ultimately to provide a stronger legal framework for smart glasses, so that those who genuinely benefit from them are not subject to suspicion or threats.
Blake Stephenson (Mid Bedfordshire) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Wishart. I congratulate the hon. Member for Frome and East Somerset (Anna Sabine) on securing this very important debate, and I thank hon. Members from across the House for their very thoughtful contributions. Counterpoint Research estimates that global sales of AI glasses rose by 263% in the first half of 2026, and the market is predicted to reach $44 billion by 2032—like other hon. Members, I expect the stockings this Christmas to be filled with AI glasses. It is essential that we examine how to keep women and girls safe as this market expands.
Technological innovations are too often accompanied by consequences that harm people, including women and girls. As a catalyst, technology can take the worst behaviour that already exists in our society and accelerate it, whether it is the pervasive use of early cameras, which resulted in the exploitation of women and young girls in a way that we look back on in horror, or the explosion of the internet and smartphones, which created a new range of problems that I know the Minister and others are trying to combat, day in, day out.
There are, of course, design issues with these smart glasses—we have heard about some of those today—but that does not mean that the technology itself was designed to cause harm. Rather, the problems arise from how it is used and exploited by those with the worst motivations in our society. That is why it is important to recognise that smart glasses are part of that wider pattern and present acute problems that impact women and girls. There have been numerous stories, some of which we have heard today, that illustrate the need to ensure that these glasses are not being used to harass women and girls in our country.
John Slinger
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the work of my hon. Friend the Member for Worcester (Tom Collins) on digital product safety is worth considering? In a white paper that he published in July, he makes the point very effectively that, just as we require physical products to be regulated so that they are safe for users—for example, lift shafts have to be safe—we should insist, through a process that he sets out in his White Paper, that digital products are safe and that the manufacturers of those products must ensure that they are safe. I think this issue would come within that scope.
Blake Stephenson
I have to say that I am not familiar with the work the hon. Gentleman refers to, but I will undertake to look into it. Perhaps he could send me a copy of it—I will be glad to read it. His broader point that safety should be built into the design is important. The Government would be wise to consider that, and I have no doubt that they are doing so.
Jim Shannon
The hon. Member for Rugby (John Slinger) brought up an incredibly important issue in his intervention, and when the Minister comes to speak, she might address that methodology for bringing regulation. We are focusing, as we should, on why people are taking advantage of smart glasses and using them illegally and criminally, but in my speech I mentioned the health workers who, when they go to visit people in their houses, use smart glasses for the purpose of their job. If we want to regulate them, should we not ensure that people who use them for the right purposes are able to do so?
Blake Stephenson
I think the hon. Member is saying that in anything that they do, the Government need to strike the right balance, because there are perfectly legitimate uses for these glasses that are useful to society, but of course there are harms. The hon. Member for Rugby (John Slinger) also talked about some of the cultural issues and problems and the education that is needed, particularly for young boys. I hope that the Government will be looking to strike the right balance.
Covert filming and online harassment of women are real harms that deserve a serious response. It is particularly concerning that people have used these glasses to record young women without their knowledge, and then used that footage for their own benefit, including commercial benefit. That is an absolutely despicable violation, and it should not be tolerated. The hon. Member for Chelmsford (Marie Goldman) referred to it as “monetised misogyny”, and I agree with her entirely, so there is cross-party agreement on this issue.
Refuge has reported that referrals to its specialist technology-facilitated abuse and economic empowerment team rose by more than 62% in 2025. The Science and Technology Committee has launched a call for evidence on technology-facilitated abuse. I hope that the Committee will use this important opportunity to help us all understand the prevalence of abuse in our society.
It is important to recognise that this issue is complicated by UK laws on filming. As hon. Members will be aware, it is not inherently unlawful to take photos or videos of people in public without their permission, but it can, of course, cross over into criminality. That is why the Home Office worryingly released a poster warning illegal immigrants about the legality of recording people without their permission. The fact that such a poster needed to be produced by Government in the first place is difficult for many to comprehend. The criticism it received from the National Union of Journalists illustrates the challenge of balancing protecting existing rights with stopping the unscrupulous use of technology.
That makes it all the more necessary to examine the issue and work closely with companies to ensure that new technology does not increase the prevalence of crimes against women and girls. In 2019, Parliament considered the disgusting practice of upskirting and passed the Voyeurism (Offences) Act, which created targeted offences related to upskirting. That provides a useful example of Parliament addressing a particular harmful act without outlawing everyday cameras.
If changes to legislation are necessary, they must be based on evidence, and we must ensure that we create the best policies we can. I would therefore appreciate the Minister setting out what evidence the Government are gathering on the prevalence of covert filming with smart glasses, its harms and the effectiveness of existing safeguards. We must be able to recognise the public’s concern when they see people using these glasses, while also distinguishing between their wrongful use and their use for genuinely important reasons, as the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) said.
I understand that the Norwegian Government recently announced their intention to restrict the use of these devices in specific locations. To the point of the hon. Member for Chelmsford, women and girls should be safe everywhere, but it is important that any action here supports clear policies for genuinely sensitive environments, such as changing rooms, schools and clinical settings. There are existing laws that cover some of those matters, but we must be explicit about how we keep people safe in those environments. If we do not, we undermine those who seek to use this technology to truly improve people’s lives.
One example, as we heard already this morning, comes from the Royal National Institute of Blind People. It has recognised concerns, as reflected on by the hon. Member for Frome and East Somerset, but has also commented on how some blind and partially sighted people use smart glasses to benefit from enhanced access to information. Paul Arnold, the chief executive of the Information Commissioner’s Office, spoke about his experience using these glasses as a severely visually impaired person. The combination of AI and audio feedback has helped him to better understand his surroundings, access information and navigate the world with greater confidence.
This technology may also help those suffering from other serious health conditions. CrossSense, which makes AI smart glasses, recently beat 174 other inventions from around the world to win the prestigious £1 million Longitude prize on dementia. Furthermore, it is easy to see the uses for journalists working in the public interest, or the potential long-term benefits if the police could use the technology in a similar way to body-worn cameras or use facial recognition technology, an effective tool for identifying and catching criminals who commit violence against women and girls. I do not seek to downplay the risks posed by these devices with those examples, but rather to encourage the Government to consider those beneficial uses before introducing any blanket bans.
I recognise that the Minister’s Department is committed to the violence against women and girls action plan and to working across Government to encourage safety by design in smart and connected technology, which was mentioned earlier by the hon. Member for Rugby. There are concerns about delivery, however, and my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester East (Shivani Raja) raised concerns about missed deadlines in the development of the plan. As Dame Nicole Jacobs told the Home Affairs Committee last week,
“I do not believe that, to date, this strategy has been implemented in a way that shows that it is at the top of the priority list, in terms of resource and all those things.”
Can the Minister set out what measurable progress has been made on that commitment? Presumably, it involved the Department for Science, Innovation and Technology—a Department that no longer exists given recent changes at the top.
To conclude, all too often we have seen new technology used in a manner that puts women and girls at risk. I hope that we can find proportionate, sensitive and sensible policies that enable the continued use of that technology, while ensuring that we can prevent it from being used to facilitate the abuse and exploitation that we have seen throughout our society.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Satvir Kaur)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Wishart. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Frome and East Somerset (Anna Sabine) for securing this important debate and to all Members for their powerful contributions. There is a lot that we can agree on.
It is fair to say that today’s discussion reflects a truth about the age in which we live: that, sadly, the rapid development of technology has presented new ways to exploit and abuse women and girls. While today’s discussion mainly centred on smart glasses, I recognise that many of the issues raised go much further than any single device. They speak to a broader challenge to ensure that innovation develops alongside the safety and protection of everyone, including women and girls.
Our response must be unwavering on that, and under this Government it is. Tackling violence against women and girls is everyone’s business, and that includes tech companies taking their responsibility to keep people safe seriously. Where they fail to do so, we will act. An example of that is our recent announcement on device-level controls legislation. The cross-Government tackling violence against women and girls strategy addresses online and tech-facilitated abuse head on, setting out clear action to tackle it. That is a 10-year strategy, and with the one-year anniversary coming up, important measurables should be assessed and reviewed.
As mentioned, we know that when used responsibly, new technologies like smart glasses can be hugely beneficial. For example, smart glasses have been a game changer for those who are visually impaired, helping them navigate the world around them. However, we expect all tech companies to be designing and deploying products responsibly, with privacy and safety considerations built in from the start. The hon. Member for Frome and East Somerset asked an important question about whether those glasses were designed just with blind people in mind. I think the honest answer is probably not.
The Lib Dem spokesperson, the hon. Member for Chelmsford (Marie Goldman), said that companies have made it too easy for perpetrators, and I agree. Companies must consider the risks of their products being misused by those determined to abuse women and girls, and mitigate those risks through design. Safety by design of smart and connected technology means that we can better protect victims and survivors and stop perpetrators misusing technology.
On the question of a complete ban or restrictions of smart glasses, the benefits of smart glasses must be weighed against the harms that they can cause. The Government are already looking into options to restrict smart glasses in certain settings and restricting the sale to certain users. That work is happening at pace. Some settings have clear restrictions on taking images or videos, such as courts and tribunals, which is why the use of smart glasses in those settings is already prohibited. Other settings, such as healthcare and education, have existing safeguarding or professional policies that are relevant to smart glasses and any kind of digital recording. Both NHS England and the Department for Education are currently looking into wearable technology in certain settings as well.
The Government also recognise the concerns raised about the use of smart glasses on the parliamentary estate. These concerns are serious and I share them. Appropriate next steps are currently being considered, notwithstanding the decisions that a parliamentary Commission and Speakers of both Houses can make on the matter.
Everyone, including women and girls, has the right to feel safe going about their daily life without worrying that images or videos of them are being made and then potentially shared online without their knowledge. The Protection from Sex-based Harassment in Public Act 2023, which was brought into force earlier this year, makes it illegal for someone to harass someone else based on their sex or presumed sex, and perpetrators are already being held to account as a result. This could include taking images or videos without a person’s consent, and it can be a one-off offence.
Equally, stalking protection orders can be used to tackle stalking that is facilitated by technology, including devices such as smart glasses. That work is supported by Project Vigilant, which the hon. Member for North Down (Alex Easton), who has now left the Chamber, mentioned. The project, which is funded by Government, is a proactive policing tactic used by trained officers to identify and disrupt perpetrator behaviour in public spaces.
Marie Goldman
The Minister is making some important points; I am pleased to hear that the Government are listening. I gently say to her that posting an image or some video footage online of a woman who has been recorded without her knowledge often does not meet the threshold of stalking or harassment in itself, yet the effect on the woman can be absolutely awful. That is what the police are grappling with at the moment—they do not feel that they can prosecute. Even when the victim asks the platforms to take the footage down, the platforms do not do anything about it. What more can the Government do to tackle those specific points?
Satvir Kaur
The hon. Member is right to focus on the victim. This should not just be the responsibility of the victim. We need to design out the issues so that it does not happen in the first place, and platforms 1000% have a responsibility and should take down any images that were put up without a person’s consent. The sharing of those images without consent is illegal.
As I was about to say, where content captured using smart glasses is illegal and uploaded or shared, the Online Safety Act 2023 provides important protections. Platforms must remove non-consensual intimate images, prevent users from encountering them and prevent their services from being used to carry out an offence.
Edward Morello
I had the dubious pleasure of questioning representatives of the social media platforms during the Foreign Affairs Committee’s inquiry into misinformation and disinformation. Although I take the Minister’s point that there may be online safety regulation that directs them to remove it, the problem is that spreading engaging content is fundamental to their business model.
By the time someone has gone through the process of flagging something to a social media company and having it removed, it has already been spread by a dozen different accounts. These companies are monetising it; it is inherent to their business model. Until we start tackling the profitability of sharing this content, we will never force them into action. Can we please get some provision that allows us to fine the hell out of them for sharing this information, so that it stops making them money?
Satvir Kaur
Ofcom is fining platforms, but I wholeheartedly agree with the hon. Member. Do I believe that all platforms are doing everything possible to root this out? Absolutely not. Do they need to go further? Absolutely.
Shockat Adam
Further to the intervention by the hon. Member for West Dorset (Edward Morello) about profitability for social media platforms—and going back to what the shadow Minister said about how the manufacturers of these products intend to be good—I think we may be being a little naive. The company that makes the most popular smart glasses on the market is worth £28.5 billion. These are very smart people, and they know how these things can be utilised. Does the Minister agree that the product manufacturers hold a great deal of responsibility, and that we must be able to legislate for that as well?
Satvir Kaur
The hon. Member will have heard me talk at the beginning of my speech about designing out the problem. That is really targeted at manufacturers—an Apple or a Google—rather than the platforms themselves. One example of us going further where tech companies have failed is device-level controls. We need to nip this in the bud rather than allowing it to get out of control, and one way to do that is designing out the problem in the first place.
Blake Stephenson
I want to take the opportunity to clarify that I did not make the point that manufacturers were intending to do good. I said that they were not intending in their design to cause harm to women and girls, which is different. I do not think they intend to cause harm, but through their design, harm is being caused. I just wanted to clarify that; maybe the Minister agrees with me.
Satvir Kaur
I do, although I would add that tech companies are very clever, and while they may not intend harm, they absolutely should feel their responsibility when producing and designing these products to safeguard women and girls. I know the shadow Minister and I agree on that.
I was asked directly about this, so let me be clear: sharing or threatening to share an intimate image without consent is a criminal offence. That includes creating or requesting the creation of deepfake intimate images of adults without consent. The Crime and Policing Act 2026 strengthens those offences further.
Marie Goldman
I thank the Minister for giving way; she is being incredibly generous with her time. I feel that this is how debates should work in this place—it is really good to have this back and forth, and lots of Members are making really good contributions.
The Minister has talked a couple of times about intimate images. I want to make the point that these are not all intimate images, but it is nevertheless really distressing when they are shared across social media. I am worried about that focus on intimacy, because it is not always about intimacy in the way that we might understand it.
Satvir Kaur
No, absolutely. Irrespective, if someone’s image is out there without their consent, that is a problem.
I thank the hon. Member for West Dorset (Edward Morello) for sharing the harrowing story of Isabella, and I thank Isabella for allowing him to do so. It is completely unacceptable. Stories like that, which I sadly now hear on a very regular basis, make me and the Government even more determined to tackle this issue and focus on supporting the victim. We have heard so many times about how women and girls can act differently, and nothing frustrates me more. We really need to go for the perpetrators and for those that are creating the harm—big tech companies.
I want to reassure the hon. Member that misogyny, and particularly online misogyny, is being taken seriously by this Government. That is why we have created the national taskforce for tackling misogyny, which received £15 million in the Budget to do its work. Healthy relationships are now being taught about in schools. I have been part of one of those sessions, which I found really insightful and powerful. It was a bit sad hearing about teenagers’ experiences and what they think is acceptable and unacceptable behaviour. We sit here and think, “Surely children must know,” but actually they do not, because of what they are seeing online.
To reassure the hon. Member for West Dorset further, the Government have looked at domestic violence protection orders to ensure that they are not just about violent behaviour but that we broaden the scope to include abuse, which is why they are evolving into domestic abuse protection orders. There is already a pilot, and we are hoping to roll it out nationally by the end of this year. It will better protect victims, and it covers not just violence but things such as coercive control and stalking. To date, the pilot has resulted in the introduction of more than 2,000 police-led DAPOs, so I see it as a turning point that will widen the scope, increase our understanding and result in the police being given more powers.
I again thank the hon. Member for Frome and East Somerset for securing the debate, and I am grateful to Members for their invaluable contributions. This is not the end of the journey; it is very much the beginning. The Government are committed to this agenda, and I am personally determined to ensure that everyone—especially women and girls—can live their lives without fear of abuse. Our response must include a clear and robust response to the technological advancements of our age, whether in the form of smart glasses or any other product. Safety must be prioritised.
Tech companies have a responsibility. This Government will hold them to account, and we will not hesitate to act where they are failing. The scale of the challenge is vast, and we will tackle violence against women and girls only if everyone plays their part, but I am confident that together—including by working across parties—we can do that.
Anna Sabine
I will not rehash everything that everyone has said, but I genuinely think that this has been a really useful discussion. I appreciate the way that everyone has been so generous with their time; it has made the debate much more conversational and useful.
The Liberal Democrats and I are not calling for a total ban on this technology; I just worry that we are sleepwalking into finding that it is out of control before we have managed to do anything about it. MPs can feel rather exposed when we are out and about in public spaces; we wonder who is looking at us and clocking what we are doing. Once a number of MPs have been covertly filmed by this tech, I wonder whether we will suddenly find that it is shoved up the political agenda, but I would like it not to get to that point. I welcome the cross-party consensus on this issue and the Minister’s desire to work across parties—we would certainly like to do that.
I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Edward Morello) will pass on our thanks to Isabella for sharing her story. It is only when people like her and her mother share their stories that the issue becomes personalised and we can effect change. [Interruption.] I have just seen a mouse running behind my hon. Friend, so I will draw my remarks to a close and exit the Chamber as quickly as possible.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered smart glasses and violence against women and girls.
Lifelong Learning Strategy
(1 day, 6 hours ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Pete Wishart (in the Chair)
I will call Paul Davies to move the motion and then call the Minister to respond. I remind other hon. Members that they may make a speech only with prior permission from the Member in charge and from the Minister, which I know has been negotiated in advance of this debate. As is the convention in 30-minute debates, there will be no opportunity for the Member in charge to wind up.
Paul Davies (Colne Valley) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the potential merits of a national lifelong learning strategy.
This debate is well timed, as we are midway through Get the Nation Learning Week, a national campaign co-ordinated by the Learning and Work Institute. The campaign, backed by more than 230 organisations, marks a rare opportunity for adult learning to be pushed to the forefront, and for employers, community organisations, learning providers and Parliament to highlight the importance of the issue. What is more, today is the Get the Nation Learning awards ceremony, one of the biggest celebrations of lifelong learning in England.
In our fast-changing digital world, there has never been a time in history when the need to learn continuously throughout life has been greater. Many Governments have used education as an enabler for national renewal, a policy to call upon when the country requires radical social change. Today, we see the Government highlighting the need to radically rewire the state, foster true cross-departmental working and shake up Whitehall for good. However, there is, I believe, a gap in this plan. National renewal as lifelong learning needs to be incorporated across Government agendas within a national lifelong learning strategy.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I commend the hon. Gentleman for bringing forward this issue; I spoke to him before the debate. His proposal is something that I have been seeking as well. Does he agree that a successful national lifelong learning strategy must include all regions across the United Kingdom, including my Strangford constituency, where local colleges and community groups do phenomenal work retraining older workers? Continued adult education keeps the mind sharp, tackles isolation and directly reduces pressure on our health services. Does he agree that modular training should be shared equally across the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland so that no worker is ever left behind?
Paul Davies
The hon. Member must have been reading my speech. I will get on to some of his comments, but I totally agree with them; they were very well put.
Across the country, including in my constituency, people desperately want to see good growth in every postcode. I believe that that cannot be achieved without access to lifelong learning in every postcode. Lifelong learning has been an instrumental driver of social change at key periods in our history. In 1919, the Ministry of Reconstruction’s landmark report on adult education provided the foundations to make lifelong education a permanent national necessity. In the 1970s, the Right to Read campaign raised the profile of adult literacy across the nation. Lifelong learning has been a catalyst for social progression throughout our history, and there are important lessons to be learned. I encourage the Minister to reflect on the Ministry of Reconstruction’s foundational principle from more than 100 years ago, which is just as important now as it was then:
“adult education is a permanent national necessity, an inseparable aspect of citizenship, and therefore should be both universal and lifelong”.
An institution that helped to shape the report was the Workers’ Educational Association, which is still the largest provider of community adult education. Its history shows us how the course of working-class lives can be changed for the better when people have access to lifelong learning. The WEA shaped and was part of the history of workers’ education throughout the last century and continues to do so in this century. As one of the largest lifelong learning charities in the country, the WEA campaigns to bring learning within the reach of every adult, no matter what their circumstances are.
Learning has multiple cross-cutting outcomes. Participating in learning is shown to improve wellbeing and health. It improves connections, brings people together and reduces social isolation. It increases understanding and empathy for people from different backgrounds or cultures. It ripples out to strengthen whole communities. Furthermore, the WEA has found that more than 84% of people with pre-existing mental health conditions say that taking part in adult learning improves their wellbeing, signalling the extent to which learning helps one to lead a happier, healthier life. The WEA knows at first hand how lifelong learning brings communities closer together and helps to build confidence and agency for individuals.
Just as the evidence base for health and wellbeing is strong, the link between lifelong learning and connecting communities is powerful. Learning helps people to become more active and combats isolation and loneliness: 80% of learners say that they meet people on their courses they would not otherwise meet.
Adam Dance (Yeovil) (LD)
For young people with special educational needs and disabilities, the transition from education to further learning and employment can be really challenging. Does the hon. Member agree that a national lifelong learning strategy should prioritise dedicated pathways and support for young people with SEND, particularly in rural or hard-to-reach areas, so that opportunities after education are equal across the country?
Paul Davies
Absolutely. A lifelong learning strategy provides tremendous opportunities to take account of individual needs, particularly when we look at local implementation. I chair the all-party parliamentary group on tackling loneliness and connected communities, which spoke to young people a number of weeks ago. The key thing they talked about was individualised support, and many of them talked about SEND issues.
Not only do 86% of people who attend learning courses say that they make new friends as a result, but the volunteers also benefit: 77% of WEA volunteers feel more connected to their community following their involvement. From my perspective as chair of the APPG, that connection and that aspect of tackling loneliness are especially powerful merits of lifelong learning.
Despite the clear benefits, lifelong learning has steadily slipped down the political agenda for decades. England still lacks a national lifelong learning strategy to ensure that people have access to learning no matter where they live or what their circumstances are. That is concerning. The Government are spending £1 billion less on adult skills in England than in 2010. Employers are spending 36% less on training per employee than in 2005. The UK figure is well below half the EU average.
Grahame Morris (Easington) (Lab)
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for securing a debate on this important issue. He is presenting his case wonderfully. I want to highlight the point about the fall in investment and the vital role that both employers and trade unions play. We have seen a culture of decline in lifelong learning. As a young man, I did not go to university, but I had the great fortune to attend WEA courses in my village that were run by Ray Hudson and Huw Beynon, who came from Durham University and are now professors. That inspired me to go on to day release and night classes and to get vocational qualifications in that way. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is vital for employers to play a greater role alongside Government and trade unions, and that the restoration of the union learning fund by this Government is an important step towards rebuilding that partnership?
Paul Davies
I absolutely agree: that is a vital step. We have to look at creating partnerships right across our communities, and trade unions are a vital part of that.
Unfortunately, enrolments in publicly funded adult qualifications from the most deprived areas have fallen by 27% since 2010. That is not a situation we want to be in. More than 8 million adults still lack essential literacy, numeracy and digital skills. That is nothing short of a national tragedy. A strategy for something as fundamental and universally needed as access to learning should not be considered a luxury; it is essential infrastructure for a thriving society and economy.
There is no doubt that the UK is facing multiple skills crises. Following the Milburn report, we hear a great deal from Government, rightly, about the challenges that young people face. Significant work is under way to address them, and I am grateful for Alan Milburn’s efforts to bring together Departments and develop a cross-Government response, but the conversation must not stop at young people. Adults of all ages also need opportunities to learn for joy, to retrain and develop new skills throughout life, whether by adapting to changes in the labour market, navigating new technologies or remaining active and connected in their communities. Lifelong learning is just as important for individuals at all stages of adulthood. To unlock the merits of adult education, lifelong learning needs its Milburn moment.
Earlier this month, the APPG on further education and lifelong learning released the report of its inquiry into adult education. It recognised the lack of an overarching vision for adult education. A national lifelong learning strategy could help to overcome that; it is something that the WEA has called for and which forms the centrepiece of its lifelong learning labs campaign. The campaign started at the beginning of this year, collecting more than 2,000 pieces of evidence and bringing together more than 100 organisations, ranging from the TUC and trade unions to institutes of adult learning, charities working across prisons and with asylum seekers and refugees, and organisations looking to shape society for all ages, such as Intergenerational England. The final report and recommendations of the year-long campaign will be published on 15 December and launched in Parliament. I encourage the Minister to meet the WEA to learn more about the campaign and explore the recommendations, which could support the Government’s mission on delivering growth in every postcode.
We want to be a nation where learning is valued, where it is accessible and flexible for people to choose what is right and best for them, where adults can pick up learning at any age, where people have fun learning and want it to be part of everyday life, and where both informal and formal learning are valued and their contributions to wellbeing and productivity are understood. We know that it is not a magic bullet for all our social and economic challenges, but access to lifelong learning offers a way into a wider network of support and connection. Importantly, it improves confidence and self-worth in individuals. Finally, it will unlock greater empathy and understanding of others.
A national strategy would clearly signal that the Government value lifelong learning right from the top and see the connection across civil society. Once it is in place, regional and local leaders and providers can be empowered to deliver it and focus on local needs and priorities; I emphasise that looking locally at individual needs is crucial.
I am grateful that the Government have made positive steps in the area of learning and training. The creation of the lifelong learning entitlement, the Milburn inquiry and the youth guarantee are sensible interventions, but we need to build on them. There are issues to be addressed in the lifelong entitlement, which begins only at level 4; it automatically excludes level 1, 2 and 3 qualifications. To reap the rewards, we need to take the protocol across all levels. The strategy should provide a clear national framework with the learner at its heart, recognising that the best delivery is often local. It needs to empower regional leaders, fitting alongside the Government’s devolution agenda, to deliver community-led lifelong learning provision.
In 1919, the Ministry of Reconstruction’s report made it clear that
“adult education is a permanent national necessity, an inseparable aspect of citizenship, and therefore should be both universal and lifelong.”
More than 100 years later, that principle remains just as relevant. We have the evidence, we have the organisations and we have the opportunity to make a difference. Now we need to apply the political ambition to match it.
Michael Payne (Gedling) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Wishart. I begin by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley (Paul Davies) on securing this important debate on lifelong learning and on his incredibly powerful contribution.
I pay particular tribute to the extraordinary work of the u3a, both nationally and across my constituency. I recently had the pleasure of speaking to more than 120 members of Arnold u3a, and I want to thank all the wonderful u3a groups across Gedling, which collectively support more than 2,000 of my constituents. Their contribution to lifelong learning, friendship and tackling loneliness is truly inspirational.
The importance of that came home to me particularly powerfully last weekend when I attended a new friendship group in Mapperley in my constituency that was established by the inspirational Sarah Klotschkow. Sarah tragically lost both her beloved parents to cancer, yet out of the heartbreak of bereavement, she found the extraordinary strength and compassion to create something positive for others, bringing people together, building friendships and tackling loneliness and isolation. I pay a special tribute to Sarah today. She reminds us of the extraordinary difference one person can make to everybody else’s lives.
I was also delighted to speak at the recent parliamentary launch of the u3a’s excellent “Retirement Rewired” report. Drawing on the experience of more than 10,000 of its 438,000 members across the country, it found that 95% had said that u3a had improved their lives, 90% said it had helped them continue lifelong learning, and 45% said it had reduced loneliness or isolation. Those remarkable findings remind us that retirement should never mean retiring from curiosity, ambition, learning or contribution to society.
I therefore ask the Minister how a national lifelong learning strategy could better support organisations such as the u3a alongside grassroots initiatives like Sarah’s in my constituency, because surely the measure of a learning society is not simply how well we educate our young people but how successfully we enable every generation to continue learning, contributing and flourishing throughout their lives.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education (Josh MacAlister)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Wishart. I start by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley (Paul Davies) on securing this important debate and highlighting the opportunities that lifelong learning presents for learners, education providers, employers and our economy.
I particularly want to thank my hon. Friend for setting out the historical context of this debate and for drawing Members’ attention to the efforts of previous Governments during reconstruction and some of the economic tumult that the UK has experienced in recent years. It certainly makes the historic comparison very relevant. I also want to thank the Workers’ Educational Association, representatives of which are in the Public Gallery for this debate. The association has been in existence for 123 years, following an inspirational mission. I start my contribution by confirming that the Government would very much welcome working with the WEA on these matters and many others.
The world of work is changing, and our education and skills system must change with it. New technologies and changing skill needs mean people will benefit from more opportunities to learn, retrain and upskill throughout their working lives. We need to move beyond the idea that education happens just once, at the start of life. People should be able to return to learning as their lives and careers—and the economy—change. If we want to grow our economy, we need a workforce who are able to adapt as industries, jobs and technology change. Lifelong learning helps people to develop the skills they need to seize those new opportunities.
There is a clear case for action. Recent polling indicates that nearly half of adults in England are considering a career change, but for many, finding the time to retrain around work and family life remains a major obstacle. That is why this Government are delivering a more flexible post-18 education and skills system with the lifelong learning entitlement at its heart, giving people greater flexibility over what, when and how they study. Student finance in England is changing to reflect that, and this debate is timely, because last Friday 30 October, the application service for the new student finance system, the lifelong learning entitlement was launched. The policy was announced by the previous Government just over six years ago, and I want to acknowledge the cross-party working that has been pivotal to achieving the successful launch of the lifelong learning entitlement.
Grahame Morris
I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Minister for addressing these issues. I did not want to break his flow, but on that specific issue, there are regional disparities. My constituency is in the north-east of England and many people in that region are denied opportunities, not through lack of ability but through lack of opportunity. Will the youth guarantee include the opportunity to access lifelong learning, particularly for younger people who have been denied that opportunity previously?
Josh MacAlister
I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention and for highlighting the need for both the youth guarantee—which is a separate but related policy area to the LLE—and the LLE to ensure greater flexibility over not just what can be studied but where people can access those opportunities. If someone is in a rural or more remote part of the country and physically further from a higher education institution, that should in no way be a barrier to being able to access those units of study that the LLE is designed to give people the right to access.
Alongside full qualifications and degrees, learners will, for the first time—this is the crucial thing about the LLE—be able to access student finance for individual modules of higher education. People need that kind of flexibility to fit around their work, family life and other commitments, while others may want to return full-time to upskill or retrain. Ultimately, the LLE is about creating an education system that keeps pace with people’s lives and our changing economy. It will help people build the knowledge and skills they need throughout their careers and support the workforce and economy into the future.
The Government’s response to lifelong learning, however, is broader than that single programme. We are building a system of post-18 education, skills, adult learning, career advice and higher education. Adult education helps people access new opportunities, enables employers to find the skills they need, helps the economy and builds stronger, healthier and more resilient communities. A number of Members have referenced the impact on isolation.
John Slinger (Rugby) (Lab)
On the Minister’s point about building stronger communities, does he agree that lifelong learning should also include civics education? Having a detailed knowledge of our political system is not and never should be the criterion for having the vote. None the less, gaining a better understanding of the political system, the different roles within it, and people’s rights and responsibilities would enhance our democracy. Perhaps further education colleges or schools could offer opportunities across the country for adults to dip into that civics education throughout their lives, and we could have a healthier democracy as a result.
Josh MacAlister
As a former secondary school citizenship teacher, that is music to my ears. Understandably, the current focus of the LLE and the adult skills agenda is, rightly, very much on ensuring that people can get that route into the dignity, pride and security that comes from work. Given some of the threats and challenges that our democracy faces, there are wider debates about how we ensure that not only our institutions, but our society is more resilient and deeply democratic. Education is crucial to that.
As a Government, we are investing in education and skills training through the adult skills fund, which has been referenced by a number of Members. It is worth £1.4 billion a year and supports adults to access skills training up to and including level 3, so it sits just below the LLE. That covers a broad range of provision. By fostering adult learning through the ASF, we are not only supporting learners to gain the literacy, numeracy, digital and other vocational skills that they need for meaningful employment, but driving sustained economic growth and innovation.
I welcome news highlighted in this debate by my hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Grahame Morris) of the restoration of the union learning fund by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer in September. It aims to generate 180,000 learning opportunities through the restoration of that fund and speaks to not only the values of the Labour party, but the demonstrable evidence of collaboration between industry and workers when it comes to the pipeline of future talent and skills that are needed in the economy. As the Member of Parliament for Whitehaven and Workington, I am very proud to represent those people who work at Sellafield, which has a very strong history of union engagement in learning opportunities.
Good careers advice is an essential part of lifelong learning. It gives people the confidence to make informed choices, whether they are leaving school, moving into work or retraining later in life. For young people, we are strengthening careers guidance and expanding meaningful work experience opportunities. Strong careers provision is associated with an 8% lower likelihood of becoming not in education, employment or training, with twice the impact in the most disadvantaged schools. That is why we the Government are turning that evidence into practical action.
We want every young person to benefit from two weeks’ worth of meaningful work experience built up over time during secondary school, rather than through a single placement. That will obviously have an impact later in those young people’s early adult lives. Careers hubs have already been testing that approach with more than 2,500 young people, 66 schools and 114 employers. For adults, the developing jobs and careers service will bring careers and employment support together. It will help people find work, progress or retrain as jobs and skills change in the economy.
There is a whole range of other matters that we have not had time to cover in this debate. Those include the role of devolution in adult skills funding, changes that were made by this Government to the funding formula for adult skills in 2024, and changes to the apprenticeship levy. All of those will help in the effort that my hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley has highlighted by securing this important debate. I also put on record my thanks to the u3a organisation highlighted by my hon. Friend the Member for Gedling (Michael Payne).
To wrap up, I once again thank my hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley for securing this debate and thank all of those who have contributed to today’s discussion. Although we have not had time to cover every base, it has been an important debate and one that needs to continue in the months and years ahead. I welcome further discussions and engagement on the issues considered today.
Question put and agreed to.
Heating Oil Prices: Rural Areas
(1 day, 6 hours ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Jamie Stone (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross) (LD)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the impact of heating oil prices on rural areas.
I thank all the many Members who have come along to this important debate on addressing the growing impact of rising heating oil prices on rural households. I am very grateful for the opportunity to lead the debate.
This issue is causing real anxiety the length and breadth of the United Kingdom, and particularly in my far-north constituency of Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross. For many people in the highlands of Scotland, using heating oil is not a choice, but the only practical way to heat their homes—especially during the winter months, when it is a lot colder than in other parts of the UK—because homes are scattered across a vast geography and the main gas grid is not really accessible; there are not many access points in my constituency. Lots of households that rely on heating oil do not benefit from the same protections as those connected to the main gas grid and electricity networks—that point has been made several times in this place. The regulatory safeguards do not really cover those people, and they are very much hit by sudden price increases.
My office tells me that across the UK, about 1.5 million homes, a substantial proportion of which are in rural communities, rely on heating oil. The Joseph Rowntree Foundation has highlighted that rural households typically spend 10% to 20% more on everyday essentials than their urban counterparts. They are also susceptible to higher levels of fuel poverty, because they often live in older, detached properties that are more difficult to insulate, meaning that they have poor energy efficiency.
As Members will be aware, the conflict in Iran has caused severe disruption to global energy markets.
Seamus Logan (Aberdeenshire North and Moray East) (SNP)
As usual, the hon. Member is making an excellent, well-informed speech. Does he agree that it is rather sad that, given the absence of any support in the Budget, people in our constituencies are looking to the mid-term elections in America to lead to peace in the middle east and a reduction in prices?
Jamie Stone
The hon. Member makes a characteristically interesting point, in which there may be some truth.
The price increases because of the war in Iran have led to some households having their bills doubled or even trebled. Age UK has given me some stats, and here are a couple of examples. One 80-year-old man with serious health problems saw the cost of filling his heating oil tank double from £400 in January to £800 in March. Imagine that.
Helen Morgan (North Shropshire) (LD)
Last week, a constituent got in touch to say that she had had to make a minimum order of 500 litres of oil at the cost of £560, meaning that she was out of cash for the rest of the month. Does my hon. Friend agree that we need to bring down minimum orders as well as look at issues affecting the price of oil?
Jamie Stone
I could not agree more with my hon. Friend.
Let me give one more example: a couple in their 70s, for whom the increase has been equally alarming. Their bill rose from £300 to £700, despite one of them having suffered a stroke and needing to be kept warm, for obvious health reasons. These are not abstract stats, but real people—vulnerable people who are trying to manage their household budgets, pay the bills and keep their houses warm. I have talked several times in this place about elderly and vulnerable people having to make the invidious decision either to freeze or to switch on the heating and worry about running into debt.
Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)
I am extremely grateful to the hon. Gentleman; he has done a great service in bringing this matter to the Chamber for our consideration. In my constituency, as in his, the vulnerable people are often in isolated communities; I think of Holbeach Hurn, Holbeach St Johns, Gedney and Fleet Hargate. Those people depend on heating oil, and they do not enjoy the same kind of protection that other energy users do. It is as simple as that. The Government need to act.
Jamie Stone
The point is extremely well made.
Being a cheeky chap from the north of Scotland, I thought it would be wise to write to the Chancellor ahead of the Budget to make the case for targeted support for heating oil customers. I am a little disappointed that the measures that were announced did not go quite as far as I had suggested, but—
Lara Bird (Arbroath and Broughty Ferry) (SNP)
I thank the hon. Member for securing this incredibly time-sensitive and critical debate, and for the points that he has made so far. Does he agree that it was incredibly disappointing for the people in our constituencies who rely on heating oil who were looking to the Budget to provide them with solutions that not a single penny was allocated to support them? Furthermore, does he agree that the UK Government should take lessons from the Scottish Government, who have implemented the emergency heating oil support fund, which so far has helped more than 7,000 people?
Jamie Stone
The hon. Member makes a good point. She may be cornering me into agreeing with something that the Scottish Government have done, which does not necessarily go with the grain of my psyche. Let me put it this way: the United Kingdom Government will be hearing from me again in yet another of my letters.
Ashley Dalton (West Lancashire) (Lab)
I agree with the hon. Member that households reliant on heating oil, including those in my constituency of West Lancashire, face particular issues, especially around price volatility and the absence of the consumer protections that users of electricity and gas might have. But does he not welcome the Government’s previous £50 million investment in supporting the sector, including working with Ofgem, the industry and consumers to bring forward consumer protections? [Interruption.]
Jamie Stone
Thank you very much, Mrs Barker; aren’t these Divisions annoying things?
The hon. Member for West Lancashire (Ashley Dalton) made an extremely fair point in her intervention. I have previously welcomed the Government’s commitment of £53 million, which she mentioned, to help households struggling with soaring heating oil prices. That was a move in the right direction, and I give credit where it is due. The support was well meant, but the trouble is that, balanced against the 1.5 million homes that use heating oil, it is only about £35 per household.
John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con)
The hon. Member is making an excellent speech. Thousands of my constituents rely on heating oil. Although the Government are taking VAT off electricity and have announced the removal of standing charges for electricity customers, those things do nothing to help heating oil customers. Does he agree that the Government really need to focus on those customers to ensure that they are getting the help they need?
Jamie Stone
I do agree. Hopefully, a debate of this nature will gradually, through good will on all sides and among all political parties, shift the focus on to the sort of people we are talking about.
There is also concern about the take-up of the schemes and the practical difficulties involved in identifying households. Age UK has highlighted the challenges facing organisations and local authorities in reaching out to people who desperately need the help. Perhaps we could all collectively work with the Government to ensure that steps are taken to support people to get what they desperately need.
Turning to my own party’s specific proposals, we have called for three months of zero-rated VAT on domestic heating oil. I appreciate that a VAT reduction would not necessarily reverse the international price increase that is so bedevilling this issue—it would not solve the underlying problem—but it would provide practical assistance at a time when households are facing exceptionally high bills. To quote somebody more august than me, it would be a “breathing space”. For that reason, I encourage the Government to properly assess the cost and practical implications of a temporary reduction in VAT. We will see what comes of that, but I make that appeal to those on the Government Benches.
Mike Martin (Tunbridge Wells) (LD)
I support the idea of a VAT freeze. Hundreds of my constituents rely on heating oil. A pensioner couple in my constituency ordered oil at 60p a litre in February; the order dragged on and was cancelled, then they were told that they could reorder at 124p per litre—more than double the price. Although a VAT freeze would not roll that back, it would go a long way towards helping those people out.
Jamie Stone
Yes, that is absolutely correct.
I live in an old, stone-built house in the highlands, and its only source of heating, apart from anything electric we put on, is an oil-fired boiler. People have raised with me issues around price transparency and whether the quotation is really what it says, because the quoted price and the final delivery price are not always the same thing, and we do not seem to have a proper complaints or redress process. For older and vulnerable people—the people I have talked about, who worry about whether to put the heating on and run into debt or what to do—it can be particularly difficult to navigate.
I welcome the Government’s acceptance in principle of the Competition and Markets Authority’s recommendations, and their commitment to bring heating oil customers within Ofgem’s regulatory remit. That can only be a good thing, but I ask for a clear timetable, because households have waited a long, long time. Hon. and right hon. colleagues will know that this is not the first time that I have gone on at some length about this particular issue, so that would be handy.
As many Members wish to speak—I thank each and every one for coming—I will make one final point: we must look beyond the immediate crisis to the long-term solution. I think we would all agree with that. It is not sustainable simply to respond every time international events cause heating oil prices to rise. We need to make rural homes warmer, more energy-efficient and cheaper to heat.
Rachel Gilmour (Tiverton and Minehead) (LD)
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The challenge is compounded by the nature of the housing stock in rural constituencies. Friends of the Earth says that in my constituency, 12% of people are living in fuel poverty and 62% of homes have an energy performance certificate rating of D or lower. Does he agree that part of the solution is making our homes more sustainable in terms of energy?
Jamie Stone
I entirely agree. As we know, doing this work on some older properties is incredibly difficult. I am bound to say—I return to where I started—that when I ask my constituents in the highlands, in the very far north, “Well, what about a heat pump?” many laugh at me and say, “You’re joking—in this old croft house? That is not feasible at all.” We have to be practical about what we can do.
I am very grateful to the many Members who have turned up to the debate. I believe it is the start of a discussion, and we are all on the same sheet. Let us make it happen and see what we can do for some of the most vulnerable in society.
Several hon. Members rose—
Paula Barker (in the Chair)
Order. I will be imposing an immediate two-minute limit on speeches.
Torcuil Crichton (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Barker. I thank the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Jamie Stone) for securing this important debate.
I pay tribute to the Labour Government for putting heating oil on the agenda for the first time; for a long time, most Governments have ignored off-grid homes. I know that the hon. Member would recognise a peat turf if it were thrown at him. Peat is how most homes in my Na h-Eileanan an Iar constituency were heated traditionally, but of course most have now been converted to oil. Forty-eight per cent of homes in the Western Isles rely on heating oil. Because of the age and condition of the homes, the Atlantic weather and the demographics of the population, 40% of households are in fuel poverty. In fact, it is worse than that, because 24% of households are in extreme fuel poverty: they spend over 20% of their income on keeping their homes warm in winter. Heating their homes is a huge challenge.
That is why the £53 million heating oil support scheme, and the £10 million to Scotland, was very welcome. The Scottish Government added £5.4 million to the £4.6 million from the UK Government. They had to do it bigger and better, and they centralised it. The result, of course, is that none of the money is getting to the Western Isles. Only 324 of the nearly 13,000 households there—3%—have received support, and another 337 have been turned down. The picture in Scotland is no better: there have been 13,900 applications, but only 7,000 have been declared eligible, and there are 169,000 households in Scotland that rely on heating oil, most of them in rural areas.
Instead of bleating about the mid-term elections or what the Budget can do for them, I think SNP Members should do what I have done: write to the Scottish Minister and ask for the eligibility rules for heating oil support to be expanded to take into account rurality, isolation and insularity, and for a reduction in the 500-litre minimum order, because some households cannot afford 500 litres. We call on the Scottish Government to extend the criteria to take in rurality and insularity, and to ensure that this money gets out the door.
Steff Aquarone (North Norfolk) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Barker. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Jamie Stone) for securing the debate.
When I led a debate on heating oil in April, constituents were being asked to find extraordinary sums just to keep warm. Seven months on, that problem remains. More than 10,000 homes in North Norfolk rely entirely on heating oil. One constituent’s delivery has risen from £800 to £1,400, and others have seen the price jump from 55p to £1.34 a litre in just two months. Households have to find all that money at once; they cannot just put 20 quid’s worth in the tank and hope it gets them through the week.
We know that these extraordinary price rises are a direct consequence of Donald Trump’s disastrous war in Iran, cheered on by Reform and the Conservatives, and ordinary households in North Norfolk are left paying the price. That is why I will not stop calling for a heating oil price cap. I welcome the Government’s response to the CMA investigation and their commitment to stronger regulation, but regulation alone will not protect people from the next price shock. Gas and electricity customers have a cap, but my constituents do not, simply because they live beyond the gas grid. The Government have ruled it out, but I ask the Minister to please reconsider that.
In the meantime, there is something that the Treasury could do now. One constituent’s bill has more than doubled, and VAT is still added on top. For months, I have called for VAT to be removed, as my hon. Friend the Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross said. That would be about 50 quid back in my constituent’s pocket. It would not solve everything, but it would ease the pressure on households facing a huge up-front bill, so I again ask whether the Minister will take that to the Chancellor. People in North Norfolk accept that rural life brings challenges, but they should not have to accept being punished financially for it. I hope the Minister recognises that today.
Josh Newbury (Cannock Chase) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Barker. I have heard from constituents in the rural parts of Cannock Chase that they often feel forgotten in national discussions about energy, so I am grateful to the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Jamie Stone) for securing this debate.
For people many in semi-rural constituencies such as mine, heating oil is often the only realistic means of heating their home. Last month, I held a coffee morning in Prospect Village and spoke to Ian and Linda, who are on oil. They told me that the price they were facing trebled over a single weekend. Although they recognise that the cost of crude oil is outside our control, households on oil are effectively left to the mercy of market forces, which is why we need greater regulation in the market. I very much welcome the Government’s plans to introduce that for the first time. I am glad that minimum delivery quantities are being looked at; as has been said, that will help households to manage the massive up-front costs of heating oil.
The present situation underlines why we must accelerate the transition to clean and affordable energy, generated in Britain, to cut our reliance on imports and strengthen our energy security. For rural communities, the transition must be practical, affordable and fair, and we must recognise that not all households are the same, so a one-size-fits-all approach will not work. The enhanced £9,000 heat pump grant for off-grid properties was introduced in recognition of the extra costs that many rural households face when moving away from heating oil. Heat pump uptake is still lower in rural areas, and the subsidy is due to expire at the end of this financial year. I hope the Minister will look carefully at extending it so that rural households have certainty about the help that will be available to them. My constituents Ian and Linda are keen to get off oil, but they need help to do so.
To end where I started, we must ensure that the households we represent that are reliant on heating oil are not forgotten. As we make the transition, I hope Ministers will keep rural households at the forefront of their thinking. These families face unique challenges, but they deserve the same protection, certainty and security as every other household in the country.
Mr Andrew Snowden (Fylde) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mrs Barker. I thank the hon. Member from the very north of the highlands, the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Jamie Stone), for securing this important debate.
Those of us who own an oil tank have all been there: that dreaded moment when we stick the upside down broomstick into the tank and pray that there is more oil in there than we know there actually is, because we know that means that a big bill is coming. And we put it off—as I did once, which resulted in us running out of oil on Christmas eve. The only occasion forgotten less by my wife is the time I forgot to get the septic tank emptied and it exploded on the public footpath down the side of our house—that was great for my electoral prospects.
I am not alone in Fylde: nearly 10% of houses in my constituency are not connected to the national gas grid, and it is as high as 14% in areas such as Singleton and Greenhalgh.
Robbie Moore (Keighley and Ilkley) (Con)
In my constituency, a huge number of houses in the Worth valley are impacted by the lack of Government support with heating oil. Does my hon. Friend agree that there was a major missed opportunity in Labour’s Budget to look at the implications of reducing VAT on heating oil?
Mr Snowden
My hon. Friend makes a very good point. It was an opportunity missed.
There are 4,765 houses in my constituency alone that are not connected to the grid. In Fylde, 28% of people are over 65, compared with a national constituency average of about 18%. That means we are dealing not just with rural isolation and rural poverty, but with the health and wellbeing of older people. As other Members have said, households with oil tanks often have septic tanks and other infrastructure that is far more costly to operate and maintain than being connected to the grid in the traditional way. That compounds the issues that are being felt now.
As the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross said, the funding the Government set aside works out at £35 per house. The average price of oil has gone up by about £1 per litre and the average home uses about 2,000 litres of oil, meaning that support covers less than 2% of the cost increase facing the average household. Many of my constituents have made that point to me. I encourage the Government to move faster and find more ways of supporting those people who are reliant on oil to heat their home, as the bills they face will be crippling over the winter period.
Lillian Jones (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Barker. I thank the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Jamie Stone) for bringing about this important debate.
With the conflict in Iran and the blocking of the strait of Hormuz, the price of crude oil shot up, which directly impacted about 2,700 homes in my constituency. The UK Government provided £4.6 million of targeted support to be administered by the Scottish Government to help families, so it is disappointing to see that only half of that money has been spent. I call on the Scottish Government to urgently review the criteria and the process to get the Scottish emergency heating oil payment out. It has been far too slow to get to those who need it most.
Since prices began to spike, I have heard deeply concerning accounts from families who budgeted for one price, only to find themselves facing skyrocketing costs after orders were cancelled and costs tripled. That has left too many of my constituents feeling held hostage by fuel suppliers in an unregulated market. I welcome the action taken by the Competition and Markets Authority to secure compensation for affected customers and to recommend stronger protections for heating oil users. I also welcome the removal of the 4% tariff on kerosene announced in the Budget last week.
The Government and regulators must ensure that we have a robust and fair framework for families and businesses that rely on off-grid energy supplies. We need robust regulation and zero tolerance of companies that exploit their customers. Those who exploit heating oil consumers should face tough penalties and public scrutiny to ensure that my constituents get a fairer deal now and in the future.
Graham Leadbitter (Moray West, Nairn and Strathspey) (SNP)
I congratulate the Member across the Moray Firth from me, the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Jamie Stone), on securing this debate.
In Moray West, Nairn and Strathspey, 44% of homes are off the gas grid, and over 60% rely directly on oil central heating—more than triple the Scottish national average and nearly six times the UK average. Across Scotland as a whole, 142,000 households depend on heating oil to keep warm, yet while grid-connected homes have an energy price cap, which in itself is going to see a huge increase, off-grid households have no such protection.
Heating oil is an unregulated market, leaving consumers massively exposed to price volatility. When prices reached 123p per litre, an average household using 2,000 litres faced an annual bill of nearly £2,600—more than £869 higher than the main energy price cap, and that does not include electricity on top. A pensioner in Findhorn wrote to me after paying £1,205 for just 1,000 litres of kerosene, describing it as simply unsustainable. Pensioners with severe medical conditions report orders exceeding £900 per tank, forcing them to choose between heating their homes and buying basic essentials.
Powers over energy market regulation and consumer protection remain with Westminster, yet Ministers refuse to institute price caps or regulate minimum delivery thresholds. That underscores a fundamental truth: Scotland is an energy-rich nation, yet under Westminster control, forgotten homes are left out in the cold.
Graham Leadbitter
No, I will finish.
With independence, Scotland would take full control over energy market regulation, price caps and consumer protection, preventing such a crisis from happening in the first place.
Chris Kane (Stirling and Strathallan) (Lab)
From homes and farms on the outskirts of Stirling to rural communities stretching towards Loch Lomond and the Trossachs, including Aberfoyle and north to Killin, and Crianlarich on the edge of the highlands, heating oil is not a lifestyle choice. It is the main source of warmth for thousands of households across my constituency, and many have contacted me, deeply worried about the sharp rise in heating oil prices and the impact on their household finances. Prices have more than doubled, placing enormous pressure on families, older people and some of the most vulnerable in our communities.
Understandably, there is anger and frustration—frustration that households that are reliant on heating oil do not enjoy the same protections as those connected to the gas and electricity networks, and anger that this long-standing disparity is yet to be properly addressed. There is also a wider challenge that goes beyond the immediate pressures of heating oil prices. It is about fuel poverty, the particular circumstances of rural communities and how we deliver a fair and practical transition to cleaner and more affordable heating.
The support available to households can be incredibly difficult to navigate. Across the four nations of the United Kingdom, we have different definitions of fuel poverty, different schemes and eligibility criteria, and a complicated mix of responsibilities among Governments and energy providers.
Torcuil Crichton
My hon. Friend is making a great speech. When it comes to delivering support, the system is complicated. In Scotland, it is centralised rather than delivered through councils, which means that less than half the £10 million of heating oil support has gone out the door to consumers. Does my hon. Friend agree that the money should have gone to local authorities and areas that would have more efficiently handled it?
Chris Kane
As a former council leader, I can say that councils, regardless of their political colour, are crying out for the Scottish Government to recognise exactly what can be done if local authorities are empowered to deliver good local services—it does not happen enough. I hope that the SNP Government in Edinburgh realise they can do more to empower local communities through local authorities.
How do the Government intend to work with the devolved Governments to deliver a more co-ordinated approach that recognises the particular challenges facing off-grid communities? We need targeted action that gives people greater protection today while helping them to move toward more affordable and sustainable heating in the future. Whether someone lives in Stirling, Aberfoyle or a remote home near Crianlarich, they deserve the same basic reassurance that they can afford to keep their home warm and will not be left behind in the energy transition.
Dr Roz Savage (South Cotswolds) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Barker. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Jamie Stone) for securing the debate.
South Cotswolds is one of England’s most off-grid constituencies. One in five households there relies on heating oil, which is around four times the national average. One constituent wrote to me last month that they feel “forgotten about”. Costs have doubled for families already paying a rural premium of 10% to 20% on everyday essentials and living in some of our hardest-to-heat homes. Unlike gas bills, heating oil must be paid for in a large lump sum when the tanker arrives. There is no Ofgem price cap, which leaves households exposed to volatile global markets and decisions made thousands of miles away.
I welcome the Government’s efforts and the work of Wiltshire council and the Centre for Sustainable Energy to get support to those who need it, but £53 million across 1.5 million oil-heated homes works out at just £35 each—enough for about 30 litres. The 4% tariff suspension is welcome, but it hardly compensates for prices doubling, and removing gas standing charges is no help to people without gas.
I have three asks of the Minister. First, will she press colleagues for a clear timetable to regulate the heating oil market? Secondly, will she push for further support through the crisis and resilience fund? Thirdly, will she commit to rural-proofing future energy and cost of living measures so that people are not disadvantaged simply because they live beyond the gas grid. Being off the gas grid should not mean being off the Government’s radar.
David Smith (North Northumberland) (Lab)
I commend the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Jamie Stone) for securing this important debate.
As the first missiles went into Iran, bills doubled for the households in my constituency that use heating oil—there are about 5,000 of them. It was a terrible moment, and I am really pleased that the Government stepped in with the £53 million we have been talking about. In March this year, £5 million was given to the Conservative-run Northumberland county council for the crisis and resilience fund, which can be used for heating oil. The CRF can be used for heating homes, but it is very opaque; it is unclear how that money is being used and how much has gone the door. I have been asking, and I have not yet got a clear understanding.
I am pleased that Labour have provided further relief. They are providing £100 for energy bills for households in council tax bands A to D this winter. They are cutting the kerosene tariff—I will be chasing suppliers in my constituency to make sure they pass that on to consumers—boosting the boiler upgrade scheme, and so on. It is welcome that we are bringing in regulation to heating oil.
All the responses we have heard today follow an important principle: do not mess with the market when it is working, and do not let the market mess with people when it is not—that is where we have to step in. I ask my hon. Friend the Minister: what if higher heating oil prices are here to stay? What can we do in the medium to long term? I welcome the short-term measures we are taking.
Last year, I spoke to a development trust in Norham that wants to introduce a local grid in my constituency using renewables, solar and wind. Great British Energy, which I fully support, is supposed to support little communities like that. If we can circumvent this problem and get people off heating oil where possible, and if we can empower communities to have local grids, that is what we should be pursuing. Will the Minister say something about progress on that?
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
It is a pleasure to speak under your chairship, Mrs Barker. I thank the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Jamie Stone) for securing the debate.
In the brief two minutes I have, I will speak about the situation in Northern Ireland. I remind the House of a stark, unyielding reality: for the vast majority of people in Northern Ireland, the energy price cap is a complete myth. The official statistics tell a story of systematic vulnerability: 5% of households in Great Britain rely on domestic oil heating, but 63% of households in Northern Ireland depend entirely on oil central heating. In the rural community of Strangford, where I live, dependency skyrockets to an astonishing 82%. I doubt that there is anywhere else in the United Kingdom where the figure is 82%. In Strangford and the Ards peninsula, people cannot flick a switch and rely on a regulated utility grid; instead, they are forced to watch the price of a drop of kerosene like a hawk. When the price of crude spikes, off-grid families face an immediate, brutal financial penalty. In a matter of just three weeks, we watched the average cost of 500 litres of home heating oil almost double.
What does that mean for a working family, small farmer or pensioner in Strangford? They are looking at an up-front lump-sum demand of more than £1,000 just to keep the radiators warm. If they cannot find the cash, they are left with an empty tank and a freezing home.
Mr Snowden
There is a perception that a lot of the households on oil are rich or in large houses, but in rural communities a lot of the houses that depend on oil are actually smaller properties, where there is rural poverty and isolation.
Jim Shannon
The hon. Gentleman is right. The Minister will be listening to the facts.
In Northern Ireland, fuel poverty stands at 22%—nearly a quarter of the population. Our people are being disproportionately punished simply because of where they live. We need an urgent, comprehensive strategy that bridges the gap between off-grid rural communities and the rest of the United Kingdom. I implore the Minister and the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero to work urgently with the Northern Ireland Executive to deliver sustained structural protections. We must ensure that a child growing up in rural Strangford is afforded the same basic right to a warm home as a child living in metropolitan London.
Lee Pitcher (Doncaster East and the Isle of Axholme) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Barker. In my constituency, 3,603 households are not on the gas grid, and rely on either heating oil or alternative fuel for their heating. One Belton resident who recently contacted me lives in an older house that is not connected to the mains network. They rely entirely on oil to heat their home. A year ago, it cost £864 plus VAT to fill up their heating oil tank. This year, they were quoted £1,700 plus VAT—almost double.
Traditionally, households have tried to manage the costs by filling their tanks in September, when prices are often at their lowest, but prices this high mean that, even with careful planning and budgeting, the money only goes so far. A full tank will last my constituent only till the end of January, before winter is even over, and they will then face another, potentially even higher bill. My constituent said that this is simply impossible to afford on their household income. The price has doubled, but their income has not. They are not protected by the energy price cap. Rather than being able to spread the cost across monthly payments, they have to find thousands of pounds up front to cover the uncapped cost.
I welcome the Government’s recognition of the particular challenges facing heating oil customers, including through their recent of announcement of plans to introduce stronger consumer protections. Heating a home is not a luxury; it is a necessity. People should not face additional financial insecurity simply because they live in a rural community without access to the mains gas network. I would welcome the Minister’s thoughts on how we can ensure that households across Doncaster East and the Isle of Axholme, including the one I just mentioned in Belton, will benefit from the proposed improvements to consumer protections, particularly when it comes to managing the substantial up-front cost of heating oil.
Adrian Ramsay (Waveney Valley) (Green)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Barker. During the autumn recess I had the opportunity to tour villages in my constituency. Heating oil costs were the issue that came up time and again. Over 30% of households in Waveney Valley are off the gas grid—the highest percentage of any constituency in the east of England. As many hon. Members have said, heating oil is unique because, unlike households that use mains gas and electricity, heating oil users are not protected by the energy price cap and are therefore exposed to global energy shocks, geopolitics and market volatility. Hon. Members have all heard cases of people having to choose between heating and eating, and of pensioners and children going to bed at night cold. That simply cannot be right in 2026. We cannot allow large swathes of our citizens to have to make, at the whim of Donald Trump or Vladimir Putin, that choice between heating and eating.
The Government’s response so far has not been adequate. As we have heard, the £53 million that was invested last April amounts to only £35 extra for each household. That hardly scratches the surface. Even scrapping VAT on heating oil, which would be welcome, would save only £50 for a £1,000 purchase. What do we need most? First, regulation of prices in the sector; secondly, far more significant assistance through councils, which are having to stretch the funding they are given further and further; thirdly, as other hon. Members have said, proper investment in home insulation measures. Announcements in last week’s Budget that seemed to suggest cuts to the warm homes plan take us in the wrong direction. We also need investment in things such as renewable heating systems that can work in rural communities. Those green measures are essential but they are, of course, not enough for this winter. Efforts to reduce costs and to help people right now are absolutely needed.
Terry Jermy (South West Norfolk) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Barker. I thank the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Jamie Stone) for securing this debate. The cost of heating oil has been very much at the forefront of the minds of my South West Norfolk constituents over the last seven months. Some 25% of homes in my constituency rely on heating oil; that is thousands of properties. The sudden increase in price left many in a desperate situation. My constituents, like the constituents of many hon. Members in this debate, are already paying a rural premium, given the additional costs linked to rurality. I was pleased that the Government responded quickly with the £53 million national support package. In Norfolk we got a larger share of that package than any other county council in the country, with more than £3 million for our county. However, I am furious that Reform-led Norfolk county council has barely lifted a finger to promote that support service. I have looked at the council’s social media and could barely find mention of the fact that the fund is available. My team and I have been working flat out to encourage people to apply. Many people in Norfolk who rely on heating oil are in the west of the county, and we are particularly affected.
Sean Woodcock (Banbury) (Lab)
Some 11% of my constituents in Banbury rely on heating oil. Like my hon. Friend, they welcomed the £53 million provided by the Government. In our case, Oxfordshire county council has also done very little to make people aware of that money. Does my hon. Friend agree that national and local government need to do more to make people aware of the help that is already out there for people who rely on heating oil?
Terry Jermy
The Oxfordshire example is a huge shame. It seems that there are many examples around the country. There is money sat waiting in council bank accounts that could be put to use to support local people.
Torcuil Crichton
Does my hon. Friend agree that there is a devolutionary lesson here? When money is handed out from Departments, there must be transparency and accountability from devolved Governments such as that of Scotland, from councils and from local authorities?
Terry Jermy
I am sure that the Minister will reflect on my hon. Friend’s point. There absolutely needs to be learning from this process. This is a desperate situation. The money needed to be spent quickly and here we are, months later, with it sat in bank accounts, not being used.
Andrew, one of my constituents, lives in Welney, a very small village in my constituency. At the time of the crisis his wife was going through breast cancer. He was completely unaware that the help was available. We managed to get him £350-worth of support. I hope that, in her response, the Minister can talk more about what the Government can do to pressure councils to get that money out the door to help my constituents and those of other hon. Members in this Chamber.
Several hon. Members rose—
Paula Barker (in the Chair)
Order. I remind Members that we are on a tight timeline. It is up to colleagues if they wish to accept interventions, but they may want to be mindful of that.
Adam Dance (Yeovil) (LD)
When heating oil prices go up, rural communities across Yeovil really feel the impact, yet as Trevor from Hardington Mandeville and many other constituents pointed out, the Chancellor did little to nothing to support heating oil issues. Heather put it best:
“The weather is getting colder and yet again people in rural communities seem to be forgotten.”
Many constituents have also written to me about how the biggest impact of heating oil cost rises comes from minimum-value orders. Residents have described having to order 500 litres at a time, which is totally unaffordable. I have also heard from residents in Haselbury Plucknett and North Perrott who are facing fuel poverty yet still do not qualify for Government support. As a result, they are having to dramatically cut usage, but being pushed to use less misses the bigger point. When prices are so high and there is no particular alternative to heating oil, there is only so much people can do before it begins impacting their quality of life, particularly over the winter.
Catherine from Chard’s last order cost her just shy of £2,000 for 1,500 litres. Both Catherine and her tenant are retired and would have liked to have kept the heating off and worn jumpers to save money. But Catherine says she cannot do that as her tenant is struggling to recover from a stroke, and she refuses to risk their health to save money on bills. Their property is off grid and upgrades are difficult or impossible without serious work.
Too many heating oil users like Catherine are stuck between a rock and a hard place and need Government support. I hope the Government will look to improve targeted support so that struggling constituents in Yeovil are not left out. If the Government really want to give rural communities breathing space, we need a price cap for heating oil. Rural communities simply cannot afford to bear the rising cost of heating oil any longer. It is all well and good having No. 10 North, but what we really need is No. 10 rural.
Jayne Kirkham (Truro and Falmouth) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Barker. I thank the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Jamie Stone) for securing this debate.
In Truro and Falmouth, 5,000 homes are off the grid. Like others, I welcome the £53 million of support and the regulation of the market for the first time. Similarly to other councils, Cornwall council was given £1.53 million and is handing it out in pockets of £300 for people who get council tax support. However, only £402,000 has been handed out so far. The council is doing a second round of funding and putting it into the crisis and resilience fund, but people need to know that is available. We need to push that out further.
In Kehelland village in Cornwall we have piloted hydrotreated vegetable oil—a renewable fuel that is not from the middle east. It simply needs technical consultation with heating oil suppliers and a statutory instrument for that renewable fuel obligation to be rolled out in a similar way to how it is for transport. That could really help. Many villagers in Kehelland are pleased with what they are getting and would like to see it rolled out further.
The warm homes plan will of course help people move to renewables, but in Cornwall, many houses are listed properties or in conservation areas and people struggle to make differences to their homes that will enable them to keep the heat in and make the use of the warm homes adaptations.
Ann Davies (Caerfyrddin) (PC)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Barker. First, let me say to the hon. Member for Fylde (Mr Snowden) that we have all been there, but we use a runner bean stick rather than an upturned broom.
The cost of heating oil is a major issue for my constituents in Caerfyrddin, and I welcome the Government’s decision to include off-grid households in the £100 energy support payment, which has been implemented by the Plaid Cymru Welsh Government. Unfortunately, most rural homes are not in bands A to D. In Wales, heating oil prices have risen by 103% since January, increasing the annual cost from £605 to £1,620. Rural communities are bearing the brunt of those increases.
I ask the Government for more support with those costs. Will they consider reducing VAT on domestic heating oil to provide direct and immediate relief to households, as others have asked? In the long term, we need to ensure that schemes that support the transition away from oil heating are properly funded, as the majority of rural homes are pre 1910 and cladding is not an effective option.
I am proud that Caerfyrddin ranks 16th in the UK for heat pump uptake, demonstrating that households are willing to make the transition when support is available. The MCS Foundation has warned that if installations continue at their current rate, next year’s budget could be exhausted within six months, and with the off-grid boiler upgrade scheme grants due to fall from £9,000 to £7,500 in the next financial year, it is vital that households are made aware that applications must be submitted before 31 March to secure a full grant.
Too often, rural communities are an afterthought in energy policy. The reality is that families who have no access to the gas grid are paying the highest prices to stay warm this winter. Rural communities, including those in Wales, need action now.
Joe Morris (Hexham) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Barker. I commend the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Jamie Stone) for securing such an important and timely debate. It is a pleasure, as always, to stand alongside my hon. Friend the Member for North Northumberland (David Smith), as well.
I want to start by speaking about a family who work four jobs between them, a tenant who cannot insulate her own home because she does not own it, two pensioners who do not qualify for further support, and a full-time worker on a modest salary. In rural communities, those are the people who are used to falling through the cracks and who are used to the system simply not working for them.
I have limited time, so I want to focus on what I would like to see the Government do: that is, to consider rural communities when making policy. For far too long, possibly because of the complacency with which some of these communities were represented by their constituency MPs in the past, rural areas were not particularly advocated for. I urge the Minister to consider in particular the importance of protecting those consumers and of doing what the Conservatives never did in government: to look at fixing the roof while we can. We must fix things before the crisis occurs and a time-sensitive decision is needed.
I want to praise the Government for seeing a problem and taking swift and immediate action. When the missiles started flying in the strait of Hormuz, it was a matter of days rather than months before money was committed, but the Government need to think about future crises and what we can do to avert them. I welcome the points made by colleagues on decarbonising houses. It is an open question. I urge the Minister to find ways to support rural households, as well as the businesses and community spaces that communities rely on. They might be off grid, but they must not be shut out.
Wendy Chamberlain (North East Fife) (LD)
It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Barker. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Jamie Stone)—my dear friend—for securing this important debate. In North East Fife, about 14.6% of households are off the gas grid. It is not as remote as my hon. Friend’s, but it is a rural constituency.
I want to share the experience of one of my constituents that illustrates the reality facing many households today. My constituent uses an electric heater in her daughter’s bedroom rather than turning on the boiler in order to preserve her remaining oil supply for hot water. Her energy costs mean that she has less money to spend on her overall costs, and she is now building up a credit card debt that she is trying to service. She told me:
“I can’t take my daughter to visit her grandparents because I have to ration fuel for school runs and food shopping. I make excuses because I’m too embarrassed to admit I can’t afford the 80-mile round trip.”
No family should be forced to make choices like those.
I have met with Ministers to discuss the impact not only of heating oil prices but of the rising costs of liquefied petroleum gas and red diesel. That is creating additional pressures for rural households, farmers and local businesses. I agree with other Members that while immediate support is essential, we need to focus on long-term solutions. The answer to helping people to cope with high-energy costs cannot simply be to mitigate those costs; we need to do things permanently.
That is one of the reasons why my Scottish Lib Dem colleagues in Holyrood, and indeed colleagues in Westminster, continue to advocate for an emergency home upgrade programme. I have to say, however, that constituents’ experiences with schemes such as energy company obligation 4 are really damaging and have eroded consumer confidence in making the move to more zero carbon, zero emission and better heating.
Older homes need to be heated to be maintained. It is a real challenge for people. We need to reduce that reliance in the longer term because, as we have heard, families across North East Fife and other rural constituencies absolutely deserve better.
Noah Law (St Austell and Newquay) (Lab)
My constituency covers St Austell bay, the clay country and Newquay, and it contains many households who are not connected to the gas grid and remain heavily reliant on heating oil. For those families, fluctuations such as those we have seen in oil prices can have a very stark impact on household budgets, particularly through the winter months. We need a practical solution and a transition towards cleaner heating.
I know that switching to a heat pump like the one I have in my home will not be right for everyone, but for those who do wish to go down that route, substantial support is available, including the £7,500 boiler upgrade scheme and the warm homes loans, which should go some way to dealing with what is sometimes, but certainly not always, a significant up-front cost. For now, there is of course the 4% tariff abolition. I will follow the lead of my hon. Friend the Member for North Northumberland (David Smith) and ensure, with local companies, that those savings are passed through to the consumer. We will need to push the Minister for crucial industry reforms, such as a reduction in minimum order volumes.
I would like to hear whether the much-needed Government crisis and resilience fund, which previously gave £53 million to users of heating oil, can be extended, and whether more similar support can be given to councils. If so, I would like to see our local council in Cornwall ensure it reaches a broader base of users.
I know there is more to do, such as greater support for insulation and solutions that work for off-grid homes. Clean liquid fuel such as HVO can play a huge role, as we have heard. I am interested to hear the Minister’s view on how to support those fuels and what steps the Government can take to provide additional support for heating oil users right now.
Mr Alistair Carmichael (Orkney and Shetland) (LD)
I congratulate my southern neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Jamie Stone) on securing time for today’s debate.
Orkney and Shetland have the highest levels of fuel poverty of any community in the country. I have heard colleagues complain about having a number of homes with no access to the gas grid. I share their pain, but we have absolutely no homes connected to the mains gas grid. That is something of a bitter irony because, for the past 40 to 50 years, the gas that has heated homes in the rest of the United Kingdom has for the most part landed in either Shetland or Orkney, only to be shipped south. When we heard the Chancellor last week in the Budget abolish standing charges for gas but not electricity customers, that felt like another kick in the teeth.
Given the shortness of time, I have a few asks of the Minister today. When will we see the extension of the abolition of standing charges for electricity as well as gas? Those not relying on heating oil, rely largely on electric storage heating. When will we see meaningful regulation of the heating oil market? At the very least, that regulation should include a reduction in minimum orders and introduction of a price cap, which would allow some certainty in budgeting for those who rely on heating oil.
Finally, as we move towards reliance on renewable energy, when will we see a meaningful package for community benefit and assistance with bills, so that those who live in the shadow of pylons and turbines are given access to the cheaper electricity they desperately need?
Perran Moon (Camborne and Redruth) (Ind)
It is an honour to serve under your chairship, Mrs Barker. I thank the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Jamie Stone) for securing the debate. In my remote coastal constituency of Camborne, Redruth and Hayle, more than 5,500 homes rely on heating oil as their only source of central heating. In villages such as Kehelland, Mawnan Smith and Port Navas, it is closer to half.
I warmly welcome the two-year kerosene tariff suspension announced in the Budget, alongside the previous Chancellor’s £53 million crisis and resilience fund for low-income households, and plans to strengthen consumer protections and tackle price gouging. For many, heat pumps are an answer, but they are rarely practical or cost-effective for older off-grid remote homes. Fortunately, Cornwall has part of the answer.
As mentioned, residents in Kehelland have been trialling the use of HVO for the past five years. A 20% HVO blend can reduce carbon emissions by up to 90%, while cutting consumption by around 18%, without a costly retrofit for a heat pump. The legislation already exists for a renewable liquid heating fuel obligation, which would enable HVO to be deployed at scale, but we still await the necessary technical consultation. I therefore urge Ministers to examine the Kehelland trial in depth, to reassure themselves that the supply issue they have imagined does not exist, and to set out specifically what further evidence is required, so that HVO can be realised as a low-carbon, efficient option for remote off-grid homes.
Ben Maguire (North Cornwall) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Barker. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Jamie Stone) on securing this important debate. Since March this year I, like many Members, have been inundated with pleas from my constituents, including 79-year-old Barbara from Launceston, who said:
“Will the Government please do something about the soaring prices of heating oil? I already can’t afford to put fuel in my car. If things don’t change,”
she is not sure how she will make it through this winter.
In some of the most rural parts of North Cornwall, in villages such as St Breward and Blisland that surround Bodmin moor, up to 97% of households are completely off the mains gas grid. The cost of their heating oil per tank has gone from around £400 up to around £1,200 or even £1,500. Many also rely on liquefied petroleum gas, with no specific support or targeted support outlined so far. They often have no option to switch to a cheaper provider, and when the cold sets in, as it is right now, many face a long and perilous winter of damp and freezing cold.
Finally, in the words of an elderly constituent from Nanstallon:
“Many elderly folk like us, who have lived off grid all their lives, cannot afford solar panels or heat exchangers—we are stuck with oil and LPG.”
Will the Minister please address our concerns and our calls for a price cap on heating oil and LPG, for a free month with zero VAT on heating oil and, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) already said, the removal of standing charges on electricity, as well as extra support for rural households to insulate and upgrade their homes?
Sarah Dyke (Glastonbury and Somerton) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair this afternoon, Mrs Barker. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Jamie Stone) on securing this debate and on his tireless work on behalf of the off-grid households in his constituency. I thank all right hon. and hon. Members who have spoken today.
The issue is not just a highlands problem, or even a Somerset problem. It is a problem for all rural households across the UK. Around 1.4 million homes are off the gas grid, and many of them have no choice but to heat their homes with oil. The war in Iran and Donald Trump’s reckless trade wars have sent shock after shock through global energy markets. This week, at the mid-term elections, the American people rejected the politics of division and voted for hope. They also rejected a President whose answer to every energy question is, “Drill, baby, drill”, and who pulled America out of the Paris climate agreement. But a weakened President is not a more predictable one and rural households here are still desperately exposed.
Since the war in Iran began, the price of heating oil has risen by around 80%, and yet not one of the 1.4 million households is protected by Ofgem’s energy price cap. The result is a two-tier energy system: one set of rules for homes on the gas grid and another for rural Britain. Behind the figures are real families facing a very difficult winter. A household on mains gas pays as it goes, protected by a price cap with a regulator to turn to. A household on heating oil has none of that. They have to pay in bulk, often many hundreds of pounds in a single bill just as winter sets in, so families are forced to make impossible choices. They heat one room and close off the rest. They go to bed early just to keep warm, or they put off ordering and run the risk of their tank running dry. Too often rural Britain is an afterthought when policy is made, and heating oil is yet another example of that.
Phil and Jenny, who live in North Barrow, paid 77p a litre in February. They are now paying nearly double that and cannot afford to heat their home this winter. The Government have announced three measures on energy costs. Not one of them properly reaches a home like theirs. The first is removing unfair standing charges; that is the right thing to do, but it does nothing about the cost of heating oil. The second is removing tariffs on kerosene. Again, that is welcome, but the UK trade policy observatory at the University of Sussex has found that 83% of kerosene imports already come into Britain tariff-free. So, I ask the Minister: will she publish the Department’s own estimate of how much this tariff cut will save a rural household?
The third measure is the £100 rebate that was announced last week. Any help is welcome, but will rural households actually get it? Oil-heated homes tend to be bigger, older and harder to heat, and many fall outside the scope of the rebate altogether. How many households that are reliant on heating oil does the Minister expect will receive the rebate? This is a two-tier system, so will the Minister commit that every future energy support scheme is properly rural-proofed, with a published assessment of how many off-grid homes it will reach?
My constituent Jill is a pensioner who lives in Horsington. She is the legal guardian of her grand-daughter and, apart from child benefit, she receives absolutely no help at all. She wrote to me recently to tell me that she cannot afford to fill her oil tank, so her grand-daughter will be coming home from school to a cold house.
Following pressure from the Liberal Democrats, and from many other hon. and right hon. Members present, £53 million of support was made available in March. However, that equates to about £35 per home, so that support was really limited, and delivery through local councils has created a postcode lottery for rural households. Will the Minister publish details about how much of that £53 million has been spent and by which councils? Will any unspent money be topped up and reallocated before the coldest months arrive?
Heating oil is only one part of a wider cost of living crisis in the countryside. The rural premium means that rural households spend 10% to 20% more on everyday essentials. With few buses and longer journeys in rural areas, a car is not a luxury; it is a lifeline. Rural households already face a fuel poverty gap of £987 compared with households in towns and cities.
Many rural communities have found their own way to fight back, through oil clubs and consortia. Across the Glastonbury and Somerton constituency, oil-buying clubs are a lifeline for rural communities. By clubbing together and placing one combined order, they secure customers a better price and a more reliable service, and in addition fewer tankers need to travel along our rural lanes. However, that only works if suppliers honour the price they quote. When the war in Iran began, some suppliers refused to honour quoted prices or to quote a price at all, so oil clubs were forced to suspend trading just when households needed them most. The Competition and Markets Authority found that around 1,700 customers had orders cancelled, and many were forced to reorder at higher prices or simply go without.
I welcome the Government’s decision to accept the CMA’s recommendations: a code of conduct now and a new regulatory regime to follow. However, will the Minister set out a clear timescale, so that rural families and oil clubs are protected this winter, not next winter?
I believe the CMA got one thing badly wrong: its decision not to recommend a price cap. It argued that a cap could reduce competition, but in too many rural areas there is very little competition to protect. On the Isle of Wight, for example, households have just one supplier. Where there is no competition, a price cap does not damage the market; it protects the consumer. Will the Minister commit to zero-rating VAT on heating oil for three months and to a price cap mechanism that protects off-grid homes this winter?
Emergency support must get families through this winter, but without urgent action on how rural homes are heated, we will be debating this same crisis every winter, and rural families will keep paying the price. As long as our rural homes depend on imported oil, they will be at the mercy of global events, whether that is the war in the middle east or the decisions of a volatile President, which can drive up the price of filling an oil tank in Somerset overnight.
Energy security is national security, which means speeding up the transition to renewable energy—the cheapest and cleanest new power, which is generated right here in Britain. For rural households, it means an affordable way of getting off heating oil, but by July, the warm homes local grant had upgraded just 5,470 homes—0.1% of its target. Yet last week’s Budget cut £1 billion from warm homes plan grants. The Liberal Democrats would instead deliver a 10-year emergency home upgrades programme, starting with free insulation for low-income households. Will the Minister ensure that the new home energy model properly reflects older, off-grid rural homes, so that they are not wrongly assessed and shut out of support?
In an unstable world, rural households face a cost of living crisis, and they cannot be treated as second tier again this winter. I have three asks of the Minister. First, will she publish the figures on what the tariff cut will really save rural households? Secondly, will she zero-rate VAT on heating oil for three months and introduce a price cap mechanism for off-grid homes this winter? Thirdly, will she reverse the cuts to the warm homes plan and give rural households an affordable route off heating oil? Rural Britain has been an afterthought for far too long this winter. The Government have a choice: stand with rural households or leave them out in the cold.
Sir Ashley Fox (Bridgwater) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Barker. I thank the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Jamie Stone) for securing this important debate and for his thoughtful and eloquent speech. We have had a good debate this afternoon, which has highlighted the additional costs that fall upon our rural communities. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Fylde (Mr Snowden) for his contribution, and I trust that he will not forget to top up his tank before Christmas. The hon. Member for South West Norfolk (Terry Jermy) highlighted the need for local councils to take a proactive approach to getting Government money out the door as quickly as possible. It seems that some councils are not doing that terribly effectively.
About 1.4 million households across the UK rely on heating oil, predominantly in rural areas, including many in my constituency. For those households, using heating oil is not a choice. Most are not connected to the mains gas network and have little practical alternative when it comes to heating their homes. They face particular challenges. They are exposed to unpredictable delivery costs and the burden of paying hundreds, sometimes thousands of pounds, up front to fill their oil tanks. Many are older and more vulnerable households, which simply cannot absorb sudden price shocks.
Recent international developments have demonstrated just how exposed those households have become. Disruption to oil supplies and shipping routes drove up household prices, with consequences quickly felt here in the UK. Households that had been paying £300 for 500 litres of heating oil suddenly faced quotes of between £600 and £1,000. For many families, that was simply unaffordable.
The Conservatives raised these concerns with the Government at the time and, after rather too much delay, some support was eventually provided through the crisis and resilience fund. While welcome, it addressed the consequences rather than the cause of the problem. That is why the Competition and Markets Authority’s investigation was so important. Following reports of cancelled orders, sudden price increases and demands for additional payments, the CMA identified significant concerns in the way that parts of the market were operating. The CMA intervened where suppliers may have breached contractual obligations by cancelling orders after prices surged, and secured compensation for affected customers. I welcome that intervention. However, investigations after the damage has already been done do not fix the issue.
I know that the Minister will refer to the Government’s intention to regulate the heating oil sector. I welcome the fact that action is finally being considered, but households deserve more than good intentions. Can the Minister tell us when the Government expect to implement the CMA’s recommendations and when consumers can expect to see tangible improvements? What timetable has been set for the Government’s work on price transparency and consumer choice, and when will Parliament be updated on the progress? Those questions matter because winter does not wait for reviews, assessments or consultations.
Some of the announcements in the Budget may have sounded impressive on the day, but for many households they will hardly be noticed. There may be £100 for certain households, but when some people’s energy bills are set to rise by more than £500, many will reasonably ask, “What was the point?” It is clear, however, that the Chancellor has at least noticed the Conservatives’ cheap power plan. Cutting VAT and scrapping carbon levies on energy bills—I find myself wondering where he might have got those ideas from. The broader problem is that the Government appear more interested in managing the consequences of high energy prices than in addressing their causes.
David Smith
On the hon. Member’s point about managing consequences, I welcome his positivity about the things that the Government are doing, but does he agree that it was a terrible idea for the last Government to abandon the UK’s gas storage in 2015?
Sir Ashley Fox
That is a complicated issue, because of course the cost of managing Rough would have meant a levy on gas bills, so it is not quite the easy solution that the hon. Member proposes. It is not as if gas storage automatically reduces all gas bills; in the long term, it may actually lead to higher costs for gas consumers. It is an important issue, but that is not the simple fix that the hon. Member claims.
The United Kingdom possesses significant oil and gas resources, world-class expertise and a highly skilled workforce, yet key decisions continue to be delayed. The decision on Jackdaw, for example, was delayed for months. I wonder why. Could it possibly have been an inconvenient by-election in Holborn and St Pancras? The future of Rosebank remains uncertain. Time and again, Ministers have chosen hesitation over action.
Good policy is not simply making an announcement; it is having a plan, delivering that plan and achieving results. That is the test by which households reliant on heating oil will judge this Government: are their energy bills lower? For millions of people, this debate is not about regulation or market design; it is about whether they can afford to keep their homes warm this winter. Rural families should not be disadvantaged simply because they live beyond the gas grid. Affordable energy should not depend on someone’s postcode, and far too often this Government forget our rural communities.
The Government talk repeatedly about managing expensive energy. That is not enough. People do not want expensive energy to be managed; they want energy to be made affordable. Let us therefore have clear deadlines, measurable commitments and action, not an obsession with process. If Ministers cannot tell households when they will feel the benefit of those reforms, all they are offering is more process and more delay. Families facing another winter of high costs cannot afford to wait. Those households need lower bills, warmer homes and a Government focused on making energy cheaper.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero (Ms Polly Billington)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Barker. I thank everybody who has spoken in the debate, and indeed their correspondents and constituents, for raising the issue of heating oil and the powerful ways in which they have conveyed it here in this Chamber.
It will be of little comfort to those people that the situations that I hear about in my own correspondence regarding heating oil keep me awake at night. The reality is that, for far too many families in this country, our exposure to the global energy crisis is felt most strongly by people who simply thought that this was the way they would be able to heat their homes for good. That change is a profound and difficult transition for them, which we as a Government have a responsibility to support them through.
Others have mentioned those 1.5 million homes and talked about the thousands of people affected in their own constituencies, and we recognise those particular challenges. It is worth while, however, thinking about how we are addressing that in the context of the wider global energy crisis and the efforts that we have already made.
This is an extremely difficult international backdrop. Some Members have mentioned how hopeful they are because of the midterm results overnight, but I tell this Chamber that, even if there were to be a full and complete ceasefire in Iran now, we would not see a return to the comparatively low prices we had before. Half of the recessions since 1973 have been caused by fossil fuel shocks. I have enormous respect for the hon. Member for Bridgwater (Sir Ashley Fox), but if we are to protect these families in the future, we need to get off the fossil fuel rollercoaster, not simply talk about drilling more—anywhere at all, frankly. Oil and gas will continue to be part of our energy mix for some time to come, but continuing to allow these families to be exposed to the fossil fuel rollercoaster would be a dereliction of duty.
That is why it is so important that we have committed to the boiler upgrade scheme, for example. I slightly correct my hon. Friend the Member for St Austell and Newquay (Noah Law), as the scheme actually provides £9,000 for off-grid homes. The last quarter saw a 120% increase from this time last year in the number of people applying. That indicates that people can see that, if they want to reduce their exposure to the appalling consequences of this fossil fuel crisis, the best thing to do is to take advantage of the scheme and adopt cleaner heat technology.
I reassure those colleagues who mentioned that the housing stock in their communities is possibly not suitable. The Department has done a significant amount of work on this, and it suggests that more than 90% of households will be suitable for heat pumps. That will include many of the households that are currently exposed. This is not, in any way, shape or form, enough on its own. We have an emergency, bearing in mind that it is early November.
Wendy Chamberlain
I mentioned the ECO4 scheme. I accept the Minister’s statistics on suitability for heat pumps, but one of the key challenges is that we have few fully qualified tradespeople capable of carrying out this work. That is why my constituents have been left with completely substandard work when they have tried to implement changes.
Ms Billington
I am sure the hon. Lady will agree that it would be helpful if the Scottish Government understood the importance of devolving the responsibilities for this kind of thing to local government in Scotland, and ensuring that local government has the skills, powers and potential to deliver the jobs and skills that will be required. That is part of our commitment under the warm homes plan. I would like to see that fully implemented in co-operation—I believe in problem solving, not point scoring—with our partners north of the border.
It is important to think about this in the context of the other things we have done. The £100 household energy payment will be made to everyone with a house in council tax bands A to D from January, and 19% of those homes—that is 3.9 million—are in rural areas. The idea that this will not reach those people is not true. Remember that the temporary zero VAT rate on domestic electricity will extend to 98% of people who use heating oil, because they are also on the electricity grid. That will benefit them.
Mr Snowden
The Minister has just quoted the number of houses in council tax bands A to D in rural areas. Does she know how many of those houses are not connected to the grid? We need to know whether these are people in small houses in villages, or whether the measure is actually getting to the people who use heating oil.
Ms Billington
I thank the hon. Gentleman for allowing me to clarify that 19% of the people who will qualify are in rural communities and off grid. I am pleased that they will benefit.
Remember also that everybody who is on the electricity grid will benefit from the reduced policy costs on bills, which is worth £150. We have also extended the warm home discount, a £150 rebate for people on means-tested benefits, to 6 million households. These are not inconsequential efforts in taking some of the pressure off people and creating the breathing space that is required.
Jim Shannon
I thank the Minister for her comprehensive and confident approach to the questions. She is right that this is about solutions—life is about solutions. I mentioned that 82% of my rural community need oil to survive, so they are greatly impacted by this. The Minister and the Government have given some help, but when such a large proportion of my constituency, and 65% of households across Northern Ireland, entirely depend on heating oil, do they have any other ideas for how help and alleviation can be given to those who entirely depend on heating oil?
Ms Billington
We have allocated £17 million to Northern Ireland for precisely the reason that so many people there depend on heating oil. It is also important to make sure that the Northern Ireland Assembly and the Executive take up the opportunity to shift and accelerate people away from dependence on heating oil by using schemes similar to the boiler upgrade scheme that we have in England and Wales.
A lot of Members talked about the Competition and Markets Authority recommendations, and how we are accepting the recommendation to regulate. This is a long time coming. I remind the hon. Member for Bridgwater that we had an oil crisis when his party was in charge, and there was neither a decision to call in the CMA nor a decision to regulate. In fact, people who have been involved in energy campaigning and strategy for a long time are saying, “Thank goodness! This has been decades in the making.” The fact we have not had regulation in this space has caused significant problems for decades.
Through the Energy Independence Bill, which has been published today, we will be able to bring forward a new general authorisation regime to take the powers needed to bring heating oil within a proportionate regulatory framework and to strengthen protections for consumers, particularly vulnerable households. It will take time to get that regulation right, and I am sure that hon. Friends and colleagues will be aware that there are large risks in regulating at speed unless we are absolutely clear that we have ironed out all the potential risks. For this winter, we need to ensure that there is voluntary co-operation with the UK and Ireland Fuel Distributors Association and the Northern Ireland Oil Federation to ensure that providers sign up to voluntary codes of conduct and behave properly this winter.
Remember, it was the Competition and Markets Authority that enforced and secured compensation for consumers who ended up either having their orders cancelled or being charged excessively at the beginning of this conflict. That is the kind of regulation we need to see in future, and I am keen that we will be able to do that, including on minimum order volumes, which Members have talked about, and payment schemes. It is unconscionable that, for electricity, one can have a fixed tariff, a direct debit or a prepayment meter, if they are really struggling, yet people on heating oil cannot manage things in the same way.
I am extraordinarily grateful to everybody who has contributed to debate today. I am conscious of time, and I want the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (Jamie Stone) to be able to sum up, but I assure people that the concerns of rural communities around heating oil, exposure to the fossil fuel rollercoaster and the global energy crisis are absolutely at the forefront of my mind as the Energy Minister for consumers. It is absolutely essential that we establish an energy market that works for people. Notwithstanding the particular things that are helping at the moment, in the long term we will reform the energy retail market not only for those on heating oil but for everyone, so that we can benefit from the clean energy we are generating ourselves and give ourselves resilience and security that we have not previously had because of our exposure to fossil fuel shocks.
Jamie Stone
It is most encouraging, to be absolutely honest, to see a Minister who seems to be on top of her brief—a generally good impression has been made. I thank each and every hon. and right hon. Member who has spoken. The collective discussion we have had today advances our cause in the right direction. That is one of the better things we do in this place, and I hope people watching this debate will take some comfort from it.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered the impact of heating oil prices on rural areas.
Illegal Off-road Bikes: North-east
(1 day, 6 hours ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Lola McEvoy (Darlington) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered police powers for tackling the use of illegal off-road bikes in the North East.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Barker. I thank all the Members who have come to support the call for more police powers, police resources and a multi-departmental approach to tackling the scourge of e-bikes, battery-powered bikes and off-road bikes on our streets. Since I was elected with this Labour Government in July 2024, it has become increasingly clear that battery-powered bikes are the getaway vehicle of choice for those who do not respect the rule of law.
I alert the House to my constituent Julie Francis, who is in the Public Gallery today. Her mother, Gloria, was killed in Sunderland by a teenager illegally riding an off-road bike. Julie is as determined as I am to get more resources, and to get justice for Gloria, herself and the family.
Lewis Atkinson (Sunderland Central) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend for securing this debate. Gloria Stephenson was my constituent, and her tragic death in Ryhope really affected our community. Does my hon. Friend agree, as the number of Members present suggests many of us do, that we need swifter action to prevent such tragic deaths in future?
Lola McEvoy
I absolutely agree that we need more powers, more action and more police on our streets to tackle this. I have some points on powers and resources that I ask the Minister to address in her remarks. She and I have previously met to discuss this. It is a cross-departmental issue, and as a group we will be meeting the Department for Transport to address some of the licensing issues, but this debate is about what the police need now.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I commend the hon. Lady for raising this issue, and she is absolutely right. I share her concerns, which we have back home, too. We have been working on a cross-party basis in the Assembly to ensure that the Justice Bill enables the Police Service of Northern Ireland to seize scooters and bikes right away, without warning. Does she agree that the Minister should commit herself—I know she will—to sharing best practice across the regions to stop those reckless riders turning our public parks into dangerous racetracks?
Lola McEvoy
As always, the hon. Gentleman makes a clear and coherent point.
I ask the Minister to consider bolstering police powers to support our communities, which regularly report antisocial behaviour in the form of balaclava-clad battery bike riders. The police’s problem is that they do not have the resources to send out a police helicopter and a full squad to chase down those people every time antisocial behaviour is reported. The issue in Darlington and across the north-east is that e-bikes are also the vehicles of choice for organised crime.
Ms Julie Minns (Carlisle) (Lab)
My hon. Friend and I have worked very closely on this issue. It is helpful to highlight that we are talking about two types of bike: dirt bikes, which have been around for more than 100 years, and e-bikes. The problem is that dirt bikes are unlicensed, so riding them on a road, in a park and so on is illegal. Similarly, when a non-compliant electrically assisted pedal cycle is ridden on a road or in a park, it immediately becomes illegal.
Does my hon. Friend agree that the sale of non-compliant e-bikes and the horrible kits that create them should be banned? A number of police, fire and crime commissioners across the country have asked for that. Does she feel that the solution for dirt bikes is that they should have a registered keeper when they are sold and that, if they are going to be used off road, they should have a statutory off road notification?
Lola McEvoy
My learned and hon. Friend is the expert on this issue in the House, and I absolutely and wholeheartedly agree. In the interests of time, I will not reiterate the points I agree with, because I agree with all of them, and they were part of my speech, but I ask the Minister to please address them.
I agree that we need to ban the sale of e-bikes, but I am concerned about the use of antisocial behaviour as a reason against the police being forced to take action on this issue. I would like the prolific use of off-road electric bikes in our communities to be increased to a criminal offence.
Mr Jonathan Brash (Hartlepool) (Lab)
One way we can help the police is to better educate the public. We are in the run-up to Christmas, and it is generally misunderstood that e-bikes are not legal in our parks, on our roads or on our pavements. One young constituent found that out to his cost: he had owned his e-bike for only a couple of weeks, but he rode it on the road, and it was seized and crushed. Should we not say to parents, “Do not buy them this Christmas, because you are likely to lose them”?
Lola McEvoy
I absolutely agree. I have written to some high-street retailers that sell battery-powered scooters, which are popular among the younger generation. Children also use them to copycat and mimic the criminals that we see across Darlington. That is an escalation in antisocial behaviour, and it is really dangerous for those children.
Amanda Martin (Portsmouth North) (Lab)
Does my hon. Friend agree that we should ask the Minister to consider targeted funding? The shoplifting element of the safer streets programme, and the police operation we had, were really successful. We need targeted funding with better intelligence and transparent data about where bikes are being seized and crushed.
Lola McEvoy
I agree that we need targeted funding, including for police vehicles in Durham and constabularies across the north-east. Having the ability for a police team to use a motor vehicle or a motorbike is an effective way of catching these criminals. The problem is that it is a game of cat and mouse. The police have to go round all the alleys in Darlington and across the north-east, and they do not have enough power. We need deterrents too.
Lola McEvoy
I will make some progress. One of the deterrents I ask the Minister to consider is repeat reporting in hotspots. Neighbourhood policing needs more resources if it is to act as a deterrent. We would like to see increased police resources in estates or parts of the town where there is repeated antisocial behaviour involving off-road bikes.
Luke Akehurst (North Durham) (Lab)
My hon. Friend is being very generous in giving way. I thank her for her tireless work on this issue. At a recent meeting that I convened on this issue at Beamish museum with stakeholders including the police, local authorities, emergency services and community groups, a key theme raised was the need for stronger enforcement powers. Will my hon. Friend join me in urging the Minister to extend to police community support officers, as well as police officers, the power to stop and seize these bikes and report road traffic offences? That would give them the tools they need to tackle this persistent antisocial behaviour.
Lola McEvoy
I agree that PCSOs need further powers to be able to tackle the use of these bikes and to seize them. I attended a crushing, if that is what it is called—that word is new to my vocabulary—of 70 of these vehicles, which was incredibly satisfying; I really enjoyed myself. However, it is not enough to confiscate them. The public do not want to see them. They do not want them on the streets. We need to probit their sale, impose consequences for those selling them and strengthen community powers to ban them from areas.
Adam Dance
On community, a lot of residents in my constituency are scared to leave their home because of people with masks and balaclavas on riding scooters and e-bikes. I spoke to a resident who has not left her home in three weeks because she was knocked over the last time she did, and the police are just not doing enough. Will the Minister write to Avon and Somerset police to give PCSOs the authority to have handcuffs? We are one of the only places in the country where PCSOs do not have handcuffs.
Lola McEvoy
Unfortunately, I do not know enough about that bit of the legislation, but I am sure the Minister does and will address that point.
The use of balaclavas to evade detection is intimidating. The fact that the bikes are not licensed, plated or chipped means that the riders have a getaway vehicle. If the police were to catch and prosecute them, they could confiscate and crush the bikes, but that is not enough of a deterrent and the balance is weighted in favour of those using them.
I would like the Minister to consider our points. We are seeing an increase in blatant disregard for the law. There are reports of these criminals wearing balaclavas, drug dealing in plain sight in the street, and carrying machetes and other very dangerous weapons. It seems that they are willing to take the risk because they do not think they will get caught. As I said, the police are making incredible headway with Operation ORB, which is about seizing and crushing these bikes, but things seem to be weighted in favour of the criminals.
Lee Pitcher (Doncaster East and the Isle of Axholme) (Lab)
In Doncaster East and the Isle of Axholme, this problem destroys not just lives, but livelihoods. We are giving grants to community centres to get people out, but people are scared to go. Farmers and rural communities are having their livelihoods swept away by this horrible scourge. Will the Minister give us some reassurance that we will give our police more preventive measures to catch these people?
Lola McEvoy
I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend.
Will the Minister consider addressing the powers around this use of off-road vehicles, including antisocial behaviour orders? Using a public spaces protection order to ban the use of balaclavas and off-road bikes in Darlington town centre, for example, which I have called for, would mean that a police officer had to go and find somebody who was not committing a crime, but who was wearing a balaclava and using an off-road bike, and then issue them with a £100 fine for being in breach of the PSPO. Will the Policing Minister address the concerns about the deterrent being skewed, and not in favour of the public? A £100 fine is not enough of a deterrent, and the person has to be caught. We need to make sure that there are other deterrents in place, such as confiscation.
There are also problems with the licenses for riding these vehicles and with who is buying them. As my hon. Friend the Member for Hartlepool (Mr Brash) mentioned, these scooters can be bought on the high street, but as my hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle (Ms Minns) knows well, kits can also be bought online to change what could be seen by a parent as a pretty safe and fun vehicle into a really dangerous vehicle. We need to address that with more deterrents and tougher punishments.
Alan Strickland (Newton Aycliffe and Spennymoor) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend for leading the debate and for her national leadership on this issue. She makes important points about additional powers, but those powers need policing resource. Just a few weeks ago, we debated Durham constabulary’s financial challenges in meeting the requirements of increasing crime. Does she agree that, as well as additional powers, Durham police must have the proper funding they need to lead a crackdown on this appalling problem?
Lola McEvoy
I agree wholeheartedly with my hon. Friend. The funding formula is not in Durham police’s favour. We need funding formula reform, and we need it soon. I would also say that it is all well and good funding neighbourhood policing, which will act as a deterrent, but we simply do not have the resources to tackle the organised and very serious crime that is often masked as antisocial behaviour. I would argue that the scourge of balaclava-clad people on electric battery-powered bikes and dirt bikes on our roads is encouraging a more blatant flouting of the law in other areas.
I ask the Minister to address the fact that although communities are making a comprehensive attempt to report the use of these off-road bikes, by the time the police turn up, the culprits have obviously fled on those vehicles wearing a balaclava, and go completely unidentified. I therefore ask for some investigation into tracking the sale of these bikes or into other ways we can identify the wearers, who are blatantly dealing drugs in the town and surrounding areas.
I know that the Minister will be meeting the Department for Transport to address lots of these issues in a cross-departmental approach, but I ask that the Durham and north-east police forces, which are on the frontline, are seen as a pilot for any interventions. We have been given drones by our police and crime commissioners, but they are only as good as the police officers on the ground who follow them. It is all well and good seeing where the bikes are going, but if officers cannot then go and identify those using them, because it is seen as too little of a crime to drive one on the road, then it is not in their interests to use those resources to follow them. It is also not in the police’s interests to engage in a very dangerous high-speed chase down the main roads, because they know that that will endanger pedestrians.
I ask the Minister to understand some of the challenges we are facing in Darlington and the surrounding areas. I urge her to see what I have said not as an MP clutching her pearls and saying, “We are a lovely town”—which we are—“and we deserve better,” but as a canary down the mine for what criminals think they can get away with. If it is happening in Darlington in the north-east, you can bet your bottom dollar that it will happen right across the country.
The Minister for Policing and Crime (Sarah Jones)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Barker. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Darlington (Lola McEvoy) for securing a very timely and important debate.
I will start by making the basic point that I absolutely recognise the challenges my hon. Friend describes. As an MP in Croydon, I have very similar challenges, and there are similar challenges across the country with this emerging nasty problem with off-road bikes, e-bikes and e-scooters. It is probably safe to say that every MP in the country has a challenge with them.
It was a privilege to meet my hon. Friend and her constituent to talk about the awful death of her mother. It was an impactful experience that made me think about the need for us to act and do more. I hope that those who have lost loved ones or been injured, and the MPs who have had conversations with them, can be reassured that we are looking very carefully at this challenge in the Home Office and across Government.
On the wider issue of funding and how we tackle these challenges, I am acutely aware, as my hon. Friend said, of how important it is to have police presence in our communities, and I am very aware of the wider challenges in the north-east with police funding and numbers.
Luke Myer (Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland) (Lab)
Will the Minister give way?
Sarah Jones
I know exactly what my hon. Friend is going to ask me, but I will happily give way.
Luke Myer
The Minister will be sick of me raising this, but I promised my constituents that I would continue to bang on about it. I urge her to remember Cleveland police in all the conversations she has around police funding, and of course the wider north-east, which hon. Members have mentioned.
Sarah Jones
The funding situation for Cleveland at the moment is that we have secured the money to cover the mutual aid costs that Cleveland has borne—just over £5 million. Durham and Cleveland have both applied for what we are calling exceptional finance for next year and are both through to the next stage, where the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy does an analysis of the challenges. It will look at the financial resilience of the organisations and the context within which they operate, so both those forces will be going through to that. We are doing a lot of internal work on the funding formula, which we will say more about soon, but the exceptional finance will be for this financial year. The year starts in January, but the announcements will be made in December, so we are looking at those issues now. Obviously, within the funding window, it is important to say that local police are operationally independent, so it is for them to make the decisions on the tactics they want to pursue.
There have been many questions about what we can do at a national level to support the tackling of this challenge.
Dame Chi Onwurah (Newcastle upon Tyne Central and West) (Lab)
I emphasise that my constituents want to see extra resource and devolved powers to our local authorities to address the scourge of e-bikes, as my hon. Friend the Member for Darlington (Lola McEvoy) eloquently put it. I also want to make the Minister aware, if she is not, that a consultant at the Royal Victoria Infirmary told me that the hospital’s 36% rise in open leg fractures in the last three years is due to increased e-bike use. There is a cost to young lives and to the NHS. Is she working with her Department of Health and Social Care colleagues to look at the costs and at how they can be addressed by the policy she can put in place?
Sarah Jones
That is a shocking statistic. We will certainly take that away and see whether that is replicated elsewhere. We will ask our NHS colleagues to see whether there is data on that and how it is gathered, but that would be useful.
On what more we can do, I am having a series of conversations with MPs and I will do a couple of roundtables. I know a lot of MPs are interested in this space—I understand there is a WhatsApp group—and want to give their views. We have obviously taken some steps, such as the powers to seize these vehicles and not have to give notice, and the powers to extend dispersal orders, as well being able to dispose of these vehicles quicker than before.
On the point my hon. Friend the Member for Darlington made about PSPO breaches, we have increased fines to £500. It is not the answer to everything, but it is at least something, going from £100 to £500. We are looking at a number of different areas, and all the things that have been suggested are things we are looking at. I cannot promise that there will be magic money and, although I would like to, I cannot wave a wand and give all police forces extra money to tackle this problem, but we are very much looking at this challenge in the round and I know that the Home Secretary is very interested in this area, too.
There are legal changes we can think about, which obviously involve the need for legislation and to go through that process, so what are the things we could do sooner rather than later? How much can we corral police forces that carry out big operations that take these vehicles off the streets and dispose of them, and look at that nationwide? There are issues around training for officers, which we are looking at. My hon. Friend the Member for Darlington talked about the dangers of pursuing someone, but to be able to pursue, officers need a level of driving training. We need to look at whether there is an issue with the number of officers we are training. I talked only today with the new inspector of His Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary and fire and rescue services, who has just started his new role—he was the head of the College of Policing—about the things in this space that we can think about doing.
There is obviously a big piece of work to be done across Government about the rules for how these things can be used. The point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Darlington about people not understanding that a lot of this is illegal is absolutely right. The existing legal situation is messy when it comes to what someone can and cannot do, and we need to work across Government to address that.
Lola McEvoy
I would have liked to have addressed a few easy wins, but in the interest of time maybe the Minister could address them now. One issue is that a lot of people who are caught are under 18 and do not have a driving licence. Is there any avenue to addressing that through the parenting orders? For example, if someone’s child is caught riding one of these on the road, there could be knock-on consequences for their driving licence.
We had an incident in Darlington where parents were ringing up the police and asking when they could get the confiscated vehicle back. It is not the same thing as when a teacher confiscates a child’s phone for using it in school; these bikes are illegal and dangerous and have no place on the road. We need to differentiate that for parents by applying some consequences, if we cannot do it for the young people themselves.
Sarah Jones
My hon. Friend raises a good point about what to do with under-18s. We have just introduced respect orders, which are useful in this space because people who are consistently antisocial and driving these bikes are prime suspects for respect orders, which can result in a criminal offence—people can end up in prison if they breach their conditions. But respect orders do not apply to the under-18s. We need to look at our under-18s and make sure that, whatever the antisocial behaviour is, there is deterrence and interventions, as well as support where the child is vulnerable and may need it. I will take that away and commit to looking into it.
We need to look across Government and the consider the different laws that exist around these vehicles. In the Home Office, we need to be thinking about what bit of legislation, what change, or what corralling in policing we can do, and how we can send out messages about what is and is not legal. We are considering all of these issues in the Home Office. Now is the time to have these conversations, and we are looking at what we can feasibly do.
There is a general point around bikes and antisocial behaviour, which is that post covid there has been a big increase in antisocial behaviour that policing has not kept on top of, largely because of resources. This is a symptom of that. We have to make it clear to our communities that there is a way to behave and a thing to do, and that there will be consequences if people do not stick within the law. The message to all our fair, law-abiding citizens should be, “You are abiding by the law, and we are grateful for that. These other people will not get away with what they are doing.”
I am thinking about what the quick wins are, what longer-term wins we need through legislation and how we can make sure this is not seen as in any way acceptable.
Lola McEvoy
I thank the Minister for being so generous with her time. Something that comes up a lot on the doorstep when we talk about this issue is that it is the same small group, and everybody knows who it is. They might say, “Everybody knows who it is and they are always driving these bikes in and out the house.” Obviously, I do not know because they will not tell me who it is, so there is an issue there with the neighbourhood policing.
Is there any support that the Minister could give police around repeated multi-problem hotspots and families, where it is known by the community? This is driving down public confidence in the police, as well as how people feel on a day-to-day basis, as has been raised by many hon. Friends across the House. It is making people feel intimidated, scared and miserable, as well as being a danger. Can the Minister address that?
Sarah Jones
My hon. Friend makes a good point. There is the wider issue here of the years of austerity that ripped away services that supported parents and families to be the best they can be, whether Sure Start or the various iterations of family interventions over the years that have been ripped away. The police can do only so much. There is an infrastructure issue around our other public services. That is something we will look at.
I want to touch briefly on PCSOs because they have been raised a couple of times. Certain powers are given to PCSOs by each force. Different areas do different things with their PCSOs. Some, for example, are able to use drones, but others are not. On a basic level, they cannot arrest people or carry weapons. There are certain rules about what PCSOs can do, but within that local forces have some flexibility. I will take away the questions about that. I am always keen to encourage more PCSOs and their use as much as possible. I am very happy to take that away and look at it.
Lola McEvoy
Let me put on record the stellar job being done by PCSOs on the beat in Darlington, across the north-east and in every other constituency. I am sure that everyone will agree with that. PCSOs take huge personal risk for very low pay, and they work often gruelling shifts.
One PCSO—she would not like me to name her—was incredibly brave when she found two people on an off-road bike. She followed them, jumped them and got the bike; but when they turned around and realised that she was on her own, they got the bike back and assaulted her. It is deeply disturbing that that is the level we are at in the lovely town of Darlington. It is not right that the balance is so skewed in favour of those who do not respect the law. Will the Minister keep her in mind when increasing the powers of PCSOs?
Sarah Jones
I will certainly keep that in mind. There are lots of extraordinary examples of PCSOs showing great bravery and being really important crime-prevention agents as well as fighting crime in our local communities. It would be wrong of me not to say that three police officers have died in my hon. Friend’s region over the past year. We pay tribute to them and what they have given for their country. We will continue to do that, and we are very grateful for what the police do.
I absolutely hear and am having lots of conversations about the need to look at this challenge, recognise it and see it. The Home Secretary recognises and sees it, and we are very much in the market for the things that we can do. It is, therefore, a very helpful time to have this conversation and debate. I thank all hon. Members who have contributed and encourage them to keep talking to me and others in the Home Office. I will convene some roundtable sessions, and we need a proper cross-Government session as well. I thank my hon. Friend for raising such an important matter.
Question put and agreed to.
Potholes: Suffolk
(1 day, 6 hours ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Patrick Spencer (Central Suffolk and North Ipswich) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered potholes and road maintenance in Suffolk.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Barker, and I thank everybody for staying a little bit later as the House rises and everyone disappears on recess.
I will be honest: upon being elected, my focus was fighting for better schools in Ipswich and rural NHS services in Suffolk, as well as supporting small and independent businesses. I never for a moment imagined that I would become immersed in the issue of road maintenance—but, of course, events changed that.
Over the past 12 months, the condition of roads across my constituency has deteriorated massively, largely as a consequence of three major problems that have perfectly converged. First, extreme weather exacerbates fractures in the road surface. This is commonly known as the freeze-thaw cycle, and involves rainwater seeping into cracks before freezing in sub-zero temperatures, expanding in the process. In November 2025, there was some 107 mm of rain across Suffolk, followed by a significant cold snap; temperatures on the night of 20 November dropped well below 0°C and overnight frosts continued for the rest of December, somewhat unsurprisingly for that time of year. Those conditions wreak havoc on our roads.
Secondly, there has been a significant uptick in heavy-duty traffic across Suffolk roads, a consequence of increased activity at the Sizewell C site as well as increased housing construction across the county. On any day there can be between 500 and 600 heavy-duty vehicles, some with police escorts and carrying abnormally large loads, using the A12 between Martlesham and Leiston. Then there has been a proliferation of new housing developments, bringing more activity of heavy goods vehicles along quiet country roads. East Suffolk’s housing target has gone from approximately 800 homes per year to more than 1,600. Mid Suffolk has also seen its housing target more than double. Grundisburgh, Framlingham, Wickham Market and Debenham are all expanding towns with ancient road networks connecting them to the outside world.
The point of my speech is not to bemoan the impact that construction is having on residents—that is for a different day. Nor is it to question the ongoing commitment by Sizewell C to managing congestion on the A12—a topic it is very much alive to and trying to manage. It is to highlight the impact that development and other things are having on the road surfaces around our county.
The third cause of poor road conditions across Suffolk in recent years, in my opinion, is a shift in the way we allocate capital. The A12 was partially de-trunked in 2001, meaning that everything north of Ipswich fell in strategic importance and priority. It joined the A1120 and other arterial roads under the responsibility of the local highways authority, which spent years dealing with short-term funding arrangements, and then inflation eroded longer-term pay deals.
I said this morning to the BBC that this debate should not be about point scoring, so I pay credit to Suffolk county council: progress has been made in recent years in dealing with the problem. Between 2021 and 2025, the council repaired some 88,329 potholes. Each year, more potholes were repaired than were reported, showing that the council was not only responding to new issues, but dealing with existing defects.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
The hon. Gentleman is bringing forward an issue in Suffolk, but the fact of the matter is that potholes are a major issue in all our constituencies. Is he aware of a new system for repairing potholes? I understand that there will be a cost outlay, but the return is that it fixes the potholes more quickly, more efficiently and better. If we have a better system of doing it, is it not time for the Government to encourage all councils to use that new system, to ensure that potholes are repaired better and more quickly and the issue for the motorist is taken away sooner?
Patrick Spencer
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his comment; either he has read my speech or, as usual, he is far ahead of the curve, because I will get on to talk about the Dragon Patcher and the JCB Pothole Pro later on. He is absolutely right.
To get back to where I was going, today only 3% of Suffolk’s A road network is in poor condition. That is better than the English average, with the proportion in good condition broadly aligned to national figures. Suffolk’s B and C roads also outperform national averages, with a high share in good condition and significantly fewer in poor condition. Of course residents are still angry about the state of the roads and disruption caused by roadworks. I am one of those residents. I have to drive on those roads—fortunately not every day of the week, because I am here. We use our country roads to get our children to and from school every day, so I know exactly what it is like to regularly dodge potholes. That is why we are debating how we can improve the situation.
As I said recently, I recognise that the Department for Transport has substantially increased—actually, astronomically increased—funding for potholes. That should be recognised. However, I also know that the Department gave Suffolk county council a red warning for road maintenance performance in January 2026, as part of its new accountability mechanism for highways authorities. I am in favour of holding public bodies to account—it is a good thing—but it is unfortunate that in this situation the Department managed to make a slight mess of the methodology. What lessons have been learned from that process? I am wary of a system that ranks a local authority as failing when the condition of its road network is above average. I am aware of the same fraught issue in the school system, where schools that achieve very good grades are ranked as failing by Ofsted, so I understand that it is complicated.
The traffic light system includes a decarbonisation test. Councils lose five points from their best practice score if they fail to provide evidence of plans to decarbonise maintenance operations and increase climate resilience. What remedial support will be made available to local authorities that do not fare well on the interactive map? There have been confusing stories of support given to high-performing local authorities, while failing ones are offered expert advice. Expert advice is almost always useless when resources are not meeting demand. Will the Minister confirm what steps the Government will take to help local authorities such as Suffolk when they are judged to be not fulfilling their statutory role?
The purpose of this speech is to look to the future and probe this Government’s position on a number of ways in which our road network—not just in Suffolk but across the country—might be remediated in the long term. As I said, I recognise that the Government have provided more than £7 billion for road maintenance over the next four years, and that that will kick up slightly to £2 billion a year. It is absolutely right that we recognise that that is a significant increase in funding. Much in the same way, it is right that we recognise that it is still less than what the Conservatives committed in their 2024 manifesto, which would have delivered more than £2 billion per year straightaway.
I wish to ask the Government whether they will go further on a raft of issues. First, will they take reasonable steps to ensure that highways authorities have access to technology and machinery that are imperative to the quick remediation of potholes in country settings? Suffolk county council has recently deployed a JCB Pothole Pro, which I believe is on loan from JCB, and before that it leased a Dragon Patcher. These are short-term and unstable arrangements. If we want to deal with the proliferation of potholes, it strikes me as eminently sensible that local authorities are given the financial support to use the best technology available. It is worth noting that the Conservative plan for drivers, launched by the Leader of the Opposition in April 2026, commits to a national pothole patrol, with a national taskforce deploying hundreds of specialist repair units and using technology such as the JCB Pothole Pro, to fix roads faster.
Secondly, there is no doubt that British roads are in a worse condition than European comparators. RAC Europe published a survey in 2024 in which six in 10 motorists said that local roads in Europe were in better condition, with fewer potholes, than the equivalent roads in the UK. Only a fifth thought that UK roads were in better shape than those on the continent, and 57% of all drivers believed that there were fewer potholes on the motorways in Europe relative to high-speed motorways in the UK. Plenty of people therefore wonder why we do not deploy the same road maintenance strategies as other countries. Germany, the Swiss and the French have more efficient and more technologically advanced approaches to managing road maintenance.
However, the British Government do not hold data on how long councils take to repair potholes. Ministers cannot tell us whether drivers are waiting longer than they used to for repairs. We rarely deploy road maintenance teams overnight on country roads. While we give utility companies the power to start work immediately through immediate emergency permits, we do not hold contractors to account for fast delivery of road maintenance works.
I am inundated, as I am sure other Members are, with complaints from local residents who see traffic management mitigations in place way before and way after workers are seen tending to remedial works. Our roads are already clogged up with utility companies carrying out work on gas pipes or broadband wiring, under strict regulations, at low cost and involving different teams over long periods.
This all strikes me as a classic example of British bureaucracy having a hugely negative impact on the state of British roads and our economy. The BBC published a report in 2026 that stated that traffic disruption linked to roadworks cost the UK economy £4 billion between 2022 and 2023. What can the Government do to relax the rules and regulations around road maintenance, so that companies can carry out works at night, quickly and with as little disruption as possible?
Thirdly, I think that everyone, whichever side of the House they sit on, recognises that a lack of skills is blighting the road infrastructure network. A 2023 report by the Local Council Roads Innovation Group said that training budgets had dwindled—unsurprisingly, in the face of prioritisation for other areas of the road maintenance budget; that the quality of technical training was considered substandard, with a bizarre over-emphasis on net zero; and that the road infrastructure sector struggled with an image problem, such that fewer young people considered it as a potential career option, resulting in an ageing workforce.
Thirty-six per cent of people in the road infrastructure construction sector are aged 55 or over. I read in a report online that there are some 140,000 vacancies, despite a population of people not in education, employment or training of more than a million. I cannot believe that there is not an easy solution to the problem of skills in the road maintenance sector, considering the underlying structure of our labour market at the moment. If we do not have the people, we will not be able to tackle an issue where scale is the major challenge. What are the Government doing to encourage young people into the transport infrastructure sector and specifically the road infrastructure sector?
Lastly, I want to probe the Government’s position on the long-term de-trunking of strategically important roads. I said at the beginning of my speech that the A12 north of Ipswich was de-trunked in 2001. I am still perplexed as to why it has not been redesignated as a critically important road, given that we are building two nuclear reactors just off it. The German road network is more centrally managed than ours—and, by the way, it is far better managed as a result. If National Highways has longer-term funding visibility, as it now does, why would it not want to broaden its remit and look after more elements of our road network?
Before I conclude, let me tie all this up into what I think is an increasingly obvious perspective: all of the above is futile if our economy does not grow. I will say that this Government—the Labour Government—made the right decision by increasing funding. It was a mistake—a fundamental mistake, albeit a consequence of the economic situation we faced in 2010—to cut budgets. I am sure that all Government Members are raring to go after my speech identifying a load of problems with our road network that began before 2024; that is not lost on me. I implore the Minister, and all other Members, not to give me an easy time, but to take this opportunity to rise somewhat above the “it was all down to cuts, innit?” attitude. I know the Minister comes from a place that believes borrowing to spend on infrastructure will drive long-term growth, but growth will not emerge without this Government getting to grips with debt, the deficit, our welfare budget and bringing down taxes on businesses.
We have a proud history of being at the forefront of the revolution that transformed road use, when Thomas Telford and John McAdam started building roads with all-weather surfaces. There is no reason why we cannot repeat history and become the best country in the world for roads. I thank hon. Members for their time.
Several hon. Members rose—
Paula Barker (in the Chair)
Order. Due to the earlier Division, the revised end time for this debate is 5.40 pm.
Dr Peter Prinsley (Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Barker. I thank the hon. Member for Central Suffolk and North Ipswich (Patrick Spencer) for securing this debate.
I would like to invite all Members to take a journey along the A143 between Ixworth and Stanton in my constituency. I would recommend a sturdy vehicle with good suspension and at least one spare tyre. This summer, the road made headlines all over the world, because it was literally melting. After months of closures, disruptions, repairs and long diversions, residents might reasonably have expected a road they could drive on, but I am sad to say that the potholes are already back. There are slices of Swiss cheese with fewer holes than the A143. Sadly, convention in this place does not allow me to show the drone video created by my assistant Mr Tom Howard, but it is available on all good social media channels. I urge hon. Members to take a look.
The Reform administration at Suffolk county council came into office promising a war on potholes. Several months into the war, I have to report that the potholes are winning convincingly. How frustrating is that? The Labour Government delivered a record £7.3 billion for local road maintenance for four years, giving councils the funding and certainty to deliver lasting improvements. The money is being provided and the tools are there, yet in Reform-run Suffolk we still see the same roads being repaired again and again. Residents do not care much for party politics or party political slogans when they are dodging potholes on the school run. They simply want safe roads, lasting repairs and value for money.
I wrote directly to the leader of Suffolk county council asking for answers and a permanent solution. We need to know why the repairs have failed so quickly and who is accountable. Is Suffolk county council demanding compensation from the contractor? The people of Suffolk are not asking for gold-plated roads. They are simply asking for roads where the tarmac stays down and the potholes stay filled.
Jack Abbott (Ipswich) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Barker. I think this is the second time my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket (Dr Prinsley) has invited Members of this House to visit his constituency. I am a regular visitor—it is a beautiful part of the world—and I thank him for all that he is doing on the issue and on Haughley junction, which I will come on to.
Every week, I am out talking to local residents who raise the same issue over and over again: potholes. People in Ipswich and Suffolk are fed up. Frankly, they have every right to be. This is not something that has occurred just in the past year; this comes after years of under-investment. As my hon. Friend articulated so well, it is leaving rough and unpredictable surfaces that leave drivers with burst tyres, buckled wheels and expensive repairs. Cyclists are forced into rush hour traffic to avoid dangerous craters. Parents are late to work because the school run has revealed a new hole in the road.
For people across Ipswich and Suffolk, the state of our road network is not merely an inconvenience; it is a daily source of frustration, cost and, in some cases, genuine danger. That is why the publication of the Government’s road maintenance audit earlier this year was so important. For the first time, we have an objective measure of how councils are performing in maintaining our roads. Results for Suffolk were incredibly disappointing, although not surprising for anybody who uses our roads. Suffolk received an overall red rating, placing it among the worst-performing highways authorities in the country.
We have to be honest about what, and who, is culpable. Is it the Conservatives at Suffolk county council, who until May this year were in power for more than two decades? Was it their incompetence that led to one of the worst ratings in the country, or was it the Conservative Government here in Westminster who were in power for 14 years and starved Suffolk and its roads of the investment it needed? This is not just a little bit of rain; it is huge underfunding. Between 2011 and 2020, Suffolk’s annual highways allocation was cut from more than £22 million to £17.5 million.
I can only presume that whatever fantasy unicorns might have been in the 2024 general election manifesto should go in the same bucket as the unfunded hospitals and the Ely-Haughley upgrade that was announced three times but never funded. We cannot really believe any of it, given that the Conservatives had 14 years in power and their record was one of cutting funding. Admittedly, it crept up a little towards the end of their time in office, as the general election loomed, but by then it was too little, too late. The result was entirely predictable: short-term fixes became the norm, roads deteriorated and taxpayers ended up paying more in the long run. That is the consequence when incompetence and lack of interest are married with a complete lack of funding.
I am pleased that our Government are taking a fundamentally different approach. To make that possible, as I am sure the Minister will mention, we are investing £7.3 billion in local roads over four years and doubling national road maintenance funding by the end of this Parliament. That is the biggest investment in road maintenance our country has ever seen, and it includes record funding for Suffolk. Over the next four years, our county will receive £219 million to improve and maintain local roads.
By 2029-30, funding will reach nearly £65 million a year, nearly quadruple what it was under the Conservatives in 2020. That is not a modest uplift, tinkering around the edges or a temporary sticking-plaster; it represents a fundamental change in how our roads are funded. Instead of the hand-to-mouth approach of yearly settlements that we had under the Conservatives, this is a long-term funding commitment so that councils such as Suffolk county council will know exactly what they are getting for the next four years and can plan ahead. Instead of endless patch-and-mend repairs, they will have the certainty and resources to plan long-term improvements and prevent potholes in the first place, which is what we all want to see. That is the difference between the managed decline that we saw under the Conservatives, and the investment and renewal under our Government.
Investment alone, however, is not enough; delivery also matters. I will slightly depart from the assessment of my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket. The new Reform administration at Suffolk county council did not create this mess—that lies squarely with the Conservatives, locally and nationally—but it has inherited record road maintenance funding and now has the responsibility to right the wrongs that have been evident in the system for years. It has the resources and now the certainty, and residents rightly expect to see results.
Pothole-riddled roads in Suffolk are not the county’s only transport challenge. I am delighted about the package of measures that the Government have allocated to our county, including £9 million to improve bus services, the biggest upgrade since 1998. They are investing £4.5 million for active travel, which includes improved walking and cycling provision, and committed nearly £55 million in funding for upgrades around the A12/A14 Seven Hills roundabout. These are significant investments, but of course I want more. On Ely-Haughley, for example, there is a single point of failure in Suffolk, which is the Orwell bridge—
Paula Barker (in the Chair)
Order. May I remind the hon. Gentleman to remain within the scope of the debate, please?
Jack Abbott
I was about to say that road maintenance relies on transport infrastructure, which is why Ely-Haughley is so important. The Ely-Haughley scheme will take 100,000 HGVs off the road, which is incredibly important, but it is not a like-for-like replacement for the Orwell bridge, which is crossed by more than 12,000 HGVs a day coming from one of the world’s busiest container ports. That is a crucial piece of infrastructure. We have a job to do locally to make sure we renew the business case, which is now half a decade old, and see whether we can reduce the number of level crossings. The scheme has my wholehearted support, and support across the House, but we have a job to do in our local system. I am pleased that Transport East in particular has grasped the nettle.
Patrick Spencer
I have a sense of déjà vu. I feel I have said this to the hon. Member before, but it is incumbent on me to remind him that his party is now in government, with a Labour Chancellor of the Exchequer. Last week was the third opportunity for this Government to fund Ely-Haughley. I accept that it was not done by the previous Government, but he cannot just repeat some tired line like “You didn’t do it, so I shouldn’t be expected to do it either.” If it is so important, why is the hon. Member sitting here shouting at all of us, when it is the Chancellor of the Exchequer he needs to make this point to?
Jack Abbott
I appreciate that the hon. Member has not been in Parliament for a while, so he may not be aware of the conversations that we have been having across the system. He is absolutely right to point out that the previous Conservative Government pledged three times to move ahead with Ely-Haughley but did not allocate a single penny of funding. It is also the case, however, that we have met consistently with the Rail Minister about this issue. The business case that was put forward for Ely-Haughley is now half a decade out of date. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Central Suffolk and North Ipswich (Patrick Spencer) can continue shaking his head, but this is the reality, and I am giving strong feedback. This is feedback, by the way, that Transport East has grasped, that the Cambridgeshire mayoral authority knows and that our chamber of commerce knows, so it seems that everybody apart from the hon. Member is aware of the detail here.
We have been asked, as a local system, to update the business case, because how can we reasonably ask the Government to fund something half a decade out of date, from before the Liz Truss mini-Budget? How can we reduce the number of level crossings along the Ely stretch, which will also reduce the cost of this important infrastructure scheme? Is there any private investment that we can put into it, in a similar way to the lower Thames crossing? Can we build up wider regional support for the scheme? The ball is in our court. Every single stakeholder locally knows that and is advancing with that.
The other thing I would say is that Suffolk has to get serious. Collectively, we have to get serious when we pitch for funding. We are competing against every single region and nation in this country. To sit there and amateurishly keep demanding the same thing, over and over again—[Interruption.]
Paula Barker (in the Chair)
Order. Can I remind Members to be mindful of their tone, please?
Jack Abbott
Absolutely. But to make the same amateurish demands time and again, without doing any of the straightforward things that have been clearly asked of us, is not feasible. That is why, collectively, the local system is heading towards the spending review and is making sure that we are doing the things that have been asked of us at a local level.
I hope that the hon. Member for Central Suffolk and North Ipswich will listens to some of this and reflects on it, and that he will join with Transport East, the mayoral combined authority, the chambers of commerce and Members of all parties across the House on this. It does not look as though he is going to do that, which is unfortunate, because we could use all power to the wheel.
What I was going on to say, before I was interrupted, was about the fact that the Ely-Haughley upgrade is incredibly important. We want to move freight from HGVs on to our rail network. However, that is not a silver bullet for our local road system. As I say, 12,000 HGVs a day cross the Orwell bridge. We also have the Copdock junction, which I have talked to the previous Roads Minister about on a number of occasions. It is a crucial pinch point in our local road network, and one that impacts on Felixstowe. I am really hoping that we can move it forward in a future road investment strategy programme, after it was pushed from RIS3 to RIS4.
However, we have structural weaknesses within our road network. Although those schemes are incredibly important, there still seems to be a single point of failure in the Orwell bridge. Every time the bridge closes, Ipswich and the surrounding area grind to a halt. That pushes HGVs on to our country roads and unsuitable road networks, which creates an even bigger problem for road maintenance. Residents sit in traffic for hours, businesses lose money, emergency services are delayed and our local economy pays the price too.
Lee Pitcher (Doncaster East and the Isle of Axholme) (Lab)
I welcome the Government’s significant investment in potholes—£7 billion across this Parliament—but we have not yet talked about the impact that potholes have on pedestrians. In my constituency, residents have fallen in potholes while walking across roads, and wheelchair users and people with visual impairments have been injured while trying to traverse potholed roads. Does my hon. Friend agree that when we talk about investment in potholes, we need to consider accessibility and pavements as well? Issues have been raised with me about Owston Ferry, Norman Drive and Coppice Road. We need to tackle those with our investment too.
Jack Abbott
My hon. Friend is absolutely right to say that it is about not just the roads but the surrounding infrastructure, including our pavements. I walk the streets every weekend and the roads and pavements alike are in an incredibly poor state, so I hope the whole road maintenance network is looked at.
It is incredibly important that the Reform county council gets to work fixing those potholes, but we will keep coming back to this place time and again if we do not also deliver major infrastructure, such as the Ely and Haughley junctions and the Copdock interchange. As I say, I welcome the investment in the Seven Hills roundabout too.
To finish my point on the Orwell bridge, we also need to address that single point of failure, which is impacting our local economy. It is not just a bit of traffic; HGVs are being pushed on to unsuitable roads, including through our villages. That is why a northern bypass for Ipswich is so critical, not just for our town’s traffic but for the long-term future of Felixstowe and our surrounding economy.
A northern bypass is the only credible solution to that single point of failure, as a WSP report has previously outlined. It is incumbent on our local system to deliver it. The Reform county council has finally reopened work on it, six years after it was shelved with no credible alternative put forward. I hope that when that work reports back in the spring, we can go to Ministers and push ahead with that vital project.
For now, our residents deserve safe, reliable, well-maintained roads, and our businesses deserve infrastructure that supports growth rather than holding it back. The Government are doing their part, and the funding and opportunity are there for our county council. However, the new administration must now get on with the job and deliver the roads that the people of Ipswich and Suffolk deserve.
Steff Aquarone (North Norfolk) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mrs Barker. I congratulate the hon. Member for Central Suffolk and North Ipswich (Patrick Spencer) on securing this debate. Incidentally, he may find the Transport Committee’s recent inquiry into street works of interest; the Committee considered the issue in depth and made a number of recommendations to the Government, which I ask the Minister to refer to in his remarks.
Despite being a Norfolk MP, I am very pleased to represent the Liberal Democrats in this important debate. I feel perhaps uniquely qualified, thanks to the hon. Member for Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket (Dr Prinsley), who advised thick tyres and a robust vehicle for Suffolk’s roads; I have indulged myself in an agricultural vehicle to get around Norfolk for the same reason. I am only too pleased to speak about the challenges we share with our neighbours south of the border.
I have been shocked by the evidence of the deteriorating state of Suffolk’s roads, which, unbelievably, are even worse than Norfolk’s. According to the BBC, pothole reports rose by nearly 5,000 in a single year and, as I think the hon. Member for Ipswich (Jack Abbott) noted, earlier this year Suffolk was rated red in the Government’s road maintenance ratings. For locals, that is just not good enough, and I think they know whom to thank for it.
I will be gracious in responding to the request from the hon. Member for Central Suffolk and North Ipswich that I be gentle—he has at least turned up to propose this debate—but the Reform administration at the council, and his colleagues who preceded it, have presided over this abject failure in recent months and years. Drivers already facing soaring prices at the petrol pump thanks to the war in Iran—which Reform and, I gently say, the Conservatives were cheerleading—now face the cost of repairing cars damaged by potholes on local roads too.
[Valerie Vaz in the Chair]
What is even tougher for Suffolk residents is that it does not have to be this way. Colleagues in this room might all be dashing for the same train back to East Anglia this evening, but I gently encourage them to look across the border to Liberal Democrat-led Cambridgeshire county council, which is fixing four times as many potholes as Suffolk. That is a prime example of how communities that elect Lib Dem local champions get better services, better roads and a better council. My worry is that, instead of learning from Cambridgeshire, Suffolk might learn from the Reform administration in Norfolk, whose management of the highways budget is frankly laughable. Reform swanned in and abolished the ring-fenced £11,000 fund that each member had for highways projects in their division.
From my time as a county councillor—I refer hon. Members to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests—I know the impact that that funding had in local communities. It was not just about fixing potholes: we supported village gates for Melton Constable, a bus shelter and lay-by in Saxthorpe, speed awareness message, or SAM2, cameras for the A148, which has led to a project to cut the speed limit on that dangerous road, and much more. That local members’ fund was instrumental in improving road quality in Norfolk, and it should be preserved and extended in Suffolk.
The Reform administration claimed that robbing the ringfenced funding from Norfolk was needed to fund general highways maintenance and repairs, but in recent days we have seen its budget consultation, which proposes cutting a further £500,000 from highways maintenance and reducing the verge cutting on some rural roads to only once a year. That is disastrous mismanagement of our county’s roads, and the Reform administration, propped up by Restore Britain, ought to be ashamed of itself. I share that tale as a word of warning to colleagues in Suffolk; on this occasion, they should ensure that they do not listen to their friends in the north in Norfolk.
It is unclear whether there is much friendship left between the administrations. Rather than focusing on fixing the state of Suffolk’s roads, the Reform administrations in our two counties have been locked in a battle about when to hold elections for the future mayor of Norfolk and Suffolk. That is highly pertinent to road safety, given the powers that will be bestowed on the office. Our endlessly delayed devolution deal faces yet more hold-ups, because Reform administrations are fighting one another, and residents are paying the price. They are watching on as the people’s front of Reform and the Reform people’s front stand off, shouting, “Splitters!” across the border at each other while the potholes grow, the road markings wear away and the services paid for by residents’ council tax are simply not delivered to the standard that they expect.
Poorly maintained roads are a misery for motorists. In rural communities, where there is no choice other than greater car use, they will see this issue impact on them even harder. It causes issues for public transport delivery, as poor-quality roads make it harder for bus operators to run reliable services to the rural villages that need them the most. This is not just a clichéd moan; this is one of the ways in which Government failure wears people down in rural areas and makes them feel that they are being given a worse deal than people in cities.
I will bring my remarks to a conclusion, as I know that colleagues from Suffolk are keen to hear how the Government intend to address the challenges that they face. Let me end with a message of solidarity from their friends and football rivals over the northern border. We are suffering with a Reform council too, and the best cure that I can see is to elect a Liberal Democrat council instead.
Valerie Vaz (in the Chair)
Order. I remind Members that the debate is about potholes and road maintenance.
Alison Griffiths (Bognor Regis and Littlehampton) (Con)
It is an absolute pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Vaz. I pay credit to the hon. Member for Liverpool Wavertree (Paula Barker), who chaired the debate earlier. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Central Suffolk and North Ipswich (Patrick Spencer) on securing this important debate. He is a true champion for his constituents, and I am sure that they will appreciate his work in bringing the challenges that they face with potholes to this place.
Let me reflect on some of the speeches that we have heard. I find myself sitting opposite the Minister for not the first time this week, as we were in the Highways (Financing) Bill Committee earlier this week. We previously sat together on what was then the Business and Trade Committee, and I sit on an all-party parliamentary group with the hon. Member for Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket (Dr Prinsley). I want to reflect on some of the real positives of cross-party working, as Westminster Hall has the ability to demonstrate to our constituents how well we can work together.
The speeches that we have heard today were a little honey and vinegar—that is perhaps the best way of putting it. I think that honey, rather than vinegar, tends to achieve the desired results. It was absolutely delightful to go on a journey in my imagination of melting Swiss cheese in Suffolk with the hon. Member for Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket, although perhaps that journey is not delightful for the people actually doing it. It was disappointing to hear the hon. Member for Ipswich (Jack Abbott) be less parliamentary and collegiate. I felt rather let down by that, given the way in which Westminster Hall can really bring this place together.
The conditions of our roads have a direct impact on the lives of all our constituents. Many depend on our roads to get to work, take their children to school, attend medical appointments and run their businesses. In rural communities such as those in west Suffolk, there is often no alternative to travelling by car, yet for many drivers dodging potholes has become part of the daily routine.
Every journey brings the frustration of trying to avoid another jolt or an expensive repair bill. The RAC estimates that hitting a pothole can leave motorists—I include myself—facing a bill of up to £590 for damage that is simply not their fault. For cyclists and motorcyclists, the consequences can be much worse. When the same potholes remain week after week, people understandably wonder when anything will be done. They put up with diversions and road closures while repairs take place, only to see the surface break up again. They want repairs that last.
My hon. Friend the Member for Central Suffolk and North Ipswich raised the particular challenges that face west Suffolk. He rightly praised the excellent record of Suffolk county council’s previous Conservative administration, which repaired more potholes than were reported each year.
Jack Abbott
I appreciate what the hon. Member is saying about the previous Conservative administration at Suffolk county council, but they were the ones who received a red rating while in charge—one of the worst ratings in the whole country. That is not much of a record to be proud of, is it?
Alison Griffiths
I thank the hon. Member for his point. I simply refer him to the speech that I am making. My point is about potholes. The council demonstrably repaired more potholes than were reported each year.
Recently, the issue in west Suffolk has got worse, and pothole reports across the country rose from just under 14,000 in 2024-25 to more than 18,000 in 2025-26. It is a familiar picture in my West Sussex constituency. The county council received almost 24,000 pothole reports last year, up by more than a quarter on the year before. My constituents in Bognor Regis and Littlehampton want roads they can rely on. When they report a pothole, they expect it to be fixed and for that to be that. They should not have to report the same issue again a few months later. It is all the more frustrating when the council’s own figures show that the average cost of repairing a pothole rose from about £82 in 2024-25 to £118 in 2025-26.
Returning to Suffolk, the A143 between Stanton and Ixworth was resurfaced in September last year, as we heard from the hon. Member for Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket.
Valerie Vaz (in the Chair)
Order. The hon. Member is slightly beyond the conventional time limit of five minutes. I ask that she bring her remarks to a close.
Alison Griffiths
I have two questions for the Minister. First, what assessment has he made of whether Suffolk and other rural counties have enough funding to maintain the roads their communities depend on? Secondly, where councils have discretion over how they spend their maintenance funding, how will the Minister use the existing incentives to make sure pothole repairs are a priority? When his Department judges the results, will it look at how long those repairs last?
As we have heard throughout the debate, potholes are a nuisance that touch the lives of constituents across the country, in west Suffolk and elsewhere. Our roads keep the economy moving and enable all of us to go about our lives. The Government must heed the vital points that my hon. Friend the Member for Central Suffolk and North Ipswich has made today. I congratulate him once again on securing this important debate and I am sure, like me, he will hope to hear the vision from the Minister.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Justin Madders)
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Ms Vaz. I congratulate the hon. Member for Central Suffolk and North Ipswich (Patrick Spencer) on securing the debate. He spoke with real passion about the condition of the roads in his constituency and around Suffolk more generally—and rightly so, because this is not an abstract issue. All Members, whether they are present for this debate or not, know that the issue matters to people every day. Getting to work, taking children to school, reaching essential services, supporting local businesses—none of that can happen if we do not have roads. As we have heard, for too many people across Suffolk, those everyday journeys are harder when roads simply are not good enough or safe enough.
The poor state of roads is, as my hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich (Jack Abbott) mentioned, the product of over a decade of under-investment in our local road network. Potholes have been left unrepaired, surfaces have deteriorated and preventive maintenance has been deferred again and again. We are now dealing with the consequences of that, as we have heard, and we are determined to turn the situation around. The hon. Member for Central Suffolk and North Ipswich complained about the short-term funding fixes of the past. It was fair to say that, and he was gracious enough to acknowledge that we are now on a different path.
We are providing a record £7.3 billion of funding for local highways maintenance over the next four years. We are giving not only record funding, but the long-term certainty that councils need to plan properly to resurface roads and tackle the pothole plague, which will hopefully become a thing of the past. It is worth saying that Suffolk county council will receive more than £219 million over those four years, including over £45 million this year alone. That is a significant increase on the £31 million that it received in 2024-25, and a further increase on the £43 million it received last year. As my hon. Friend the Member for Ipswich said, the funding received from central Government was as low as £17.5 million in 2020. By 2029-30, that figure will rise to £64 million—almost a quadrupling. All Members would rightly acknowledge that as our giving the necessary resources.
My hon. Friend raised a number of other projects in his constituency and throughout the wider Suffolk area that he would like to see dealt with. It is important to bring all stakeholders together to present credible business cases to try to bid within what he rightly acknowledges is a competitive environment. Every constituency and local authority has lots of projects that they want to be funded.
The Opposition spokesperson, the hon. Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton (Alison Griffiths), asked whether there has been an assessment of funding for rural councils. We have confirmed that we will review the formula ahead of the next highways maintenance funding cycle so that any potential changes can come into effect from 2030 onwards. We will engage with local highway authorities as we consider any changes to the formula, because if it is decided that one area and one type of road network is more deserving, another, by definition, has to lose out. We know that every area has its own challenges, whether geography, climate, traffic levels, or, indeed, as we have heard in the debate, the nature of the local network. That is why funding is currently allocated using established national datasets such as road lengths to provide a fair and, importantly, consistent basis for distribution across England.
Of course, funding is only one part of this; delivery is also important. We have done our part, and it is now up to councils to turn that record investment into visible improvement. That is why we have introduced a strengthened system of transparency reporting, updated ratings and incentive funding. That has a number of elements to it, the first of which is transparency. Local highway authorities published updated transparency reports in September, setting out how they will spend their funding and maintain their networks. That will allow residents to see what their council plans to deliver and it will enable them and hon. Members to hold councils to account. Secondly, ratings measuring road condition, capital spending and adherence to best practice will provide the public with an accessible assessment of how well each authority maintains its roads.
As we have heard, Suffolk county council received an overall red rating for 2025-26. In the light of that, the hon. Member for Central Suffolk and North Ipswich asked what support would be provided to the local authority. I can confirm that all red-rated authorities have received support, including peer reviews by sector experts and practical advice tailored to their needs. Of course, we will publish updated ratings in early 2027, drawing on this year’s strengthened transparency reports. We are working with local highway authorities and sector bodies to refine the approach, and we have given councils the opportunity to check their submitted figures before ratings are finalised. We therefore hopefully will not have a repeat of the debate we had with Suffolk county council, whereby one set of figures was submitted to the Department and another was relied on by the council at a later date.
On incentives, to receive their full funding allocation, local highway authorities must meet certain requirements aimed at driving best practice and continual improvement in highways maintenance. This helps to ensure that our record investment is supported by sound planning, professional capability and a commitment to best practice.
Building on that, last month saw the publication of the updated “Well-Managed Highway Infrastructure: A Code of Practice”, which underpins highway asset management across the sector, with input from local authorities and, importantly, industry partners. This approach is already bearing fruit. This year’s transparency reports show that nationally we are starting to turn a corner. Councils report that they are spending almost £5 billion on highways maintenance this year, more than £800 million more than two years ago. They plan to resurface nearly 7,000 miles of road—the distance from London to Singapore, should anyone wish to drive that far, although I would not recommend it—which is a 10% increase on last year.
We also know that 94% of authorities are now planning preventive treatments, which is up from 76% previously, and the focus is increasingly on stopping potholes from forming in the first place and not simply on patching them up. It is so important that we are able to move to that preventive model, because improving maintenance is about not just smoothing rural journeys, but actually making them safer. The more preventive work that we can do, the safer the roads will be.
In 2024, rural roads accounted for 60% of road fatalities, despite carrying only 45% of traffic. Road users are six times more likely to be killed or seriously injured on rural roads than on others. That is one of the reasons why our road safety strategy sets out targets to reduce the number of people killed or seriously injured on roads in Great Britain by 65%, and by 70% for children under 16, by 2035. Good maintenance is not merely a question of convenience; it contributes to a safer and more reliable network.
I have already tried to deal with some of the points that hon. Members made, but I will now try to address any remaining ones. I must say that I am intrigued about what my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket (Dr Prinsley) got up to with the Opposition spokesperson and this cheese business. No doubt when we re-engage with the Highways (Financing) Bill next week, she can tell the Public Bill Committee all about that particular—[Interruption.] Perhaps Hansard will just have to be left guessing as to what exactly went on there.
My hon. Friend made important points about the A143 and its issues over the summer. Decarbonisation is in the metrics, but this about not just decarbonisation, but taking action to ensure that roads are more resilient to climate change by using road surface materials that can withstand extreme heat. The new transport resilience strategy that was published on 2 November strengthens how the transport sector anticipates, prepares and responds to disruptions. Of course, it is fair to say that asset owners—in this case, Suffolk county council—are indeed responsible for ensuring that such matters are dealt with.
My hon. Friend cited an interesting phrase when he said that this is a war and the potholes are winning. I am sorry to hear that that is the case. However, with the record funding that we have delivered, the transparency that we are requiring and the support that we are offering, all local authorities should be winning that war.
The hon. Member for Central Suffolk and North Ipswich asked about skills in the road maintenance sector, which is obviously a very important issue. We want to ensure that we have continuity and succession planning in this vital sector, so the incentive framework is about improving the adoption of best practice. There is a training requirement on local authorities, and how organisations offer training is reflected in an increased interest in training since we introduced that requirement. Actually, 10% more preventive maintenance has resulted from increased training. As I have said, we will give support to those authorities that are red-rated.
The hon. Member asked whether we hold data on how long it takes to fill potholes. He is correct that we do not hold that data, but we do collect data in the transparency reports about whether residents can tell their council about potholes and whether the council then responds about the action it has taken. From a public-facing perspective, that is an important metric. He also asked whether councils could have more access to technology, particularly councils in rural settings; I suggest to him that, because we have set a long-term funding strategy in place and given certainty to local authorities, they will have greater capacity and ability to plan ahead and invest in some of that new technology. He may also want to refer his local authority to the Live Labs 2 innovation programme, which includes several trials of innovative practices in rural areas.
I think I have probably covered hon. Members’ main points. The record funding is all good, but it is incumbent on local authorities—particularly, in this case, Suffolk county council—to use that funding effectively to improve their performance and deliver what I think we in this House all expect: safer, smoother and more reliable journeys. I close by thanking the hon. Member for securing this debate.
Patrick Spencer
It is good to see you in the Chair, Ms Vaz.
I thank the Minister for a very spirited effort. I appreciate that I had not sent him my speech in advance, so many of the issues I brought up were new to him. I appreciate his point about machinery and Live Labs 2. I will probably write to the Department, reiterating some of the points I have raised, and continue the process. I am not here just to continue to frustrate his inbox, but I feel there is more that can be done beyond simply talking about funding.
The hon. Member for Bury St Edmunds and Stowmarket (Dr Prinsley) raised a very interesting point that often turns up: failed remediation work. I am sure he, like me and like most MPs, has an inbox full of messages from residents who are frustrated when, if a pothole emerges and is resurfaced, it then re-emerges. When I asked Suffolk county council about the failure rates, it insisted that the rate was 1%. Whether that is true is rightly for debate, but I would also say that 1%, when we are dealing with 20,000, 30,000 or 40,000 potholes, is still a lot of potholes. It could be the case that that 1% figure is true—although it might not be—but it is a point well made.
I also thank Lib Dem spokesperson, the hon. Member for North Norfolk (Steff Aquarone), for an interesting insight into life in Norfolk, and I appreciate his point about street works. The hon. Member for Ipswich (Jack Abbott) made a speech that reminded us all what life is like driving along roads covered in potholes—it is predictably miserable and it never seems to end. I also thank the Opposition spokesperson, my hon. Friend the Member for Bognor Regis and Littlehampton (Alison Griffiths), for some very worthy points. I know she takes this issue seriously and that, whatever mistakes were made in the past with prioritising roads, the Conservative party’s work will prioritise road maintenance and transport infrastructure.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered potholes and road maintenance in Suffolk.
Written Correction
(1 day, 6 hours ago)
Written CorrectionsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Ministerial Correction
(1 day, 6 hours ago)
Written CorrectionsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Transport
(1 day, 6 hours ago)
Written CorrectionsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Simon Lightwood
Looking ahead, Great British Railways will address resilience across track and train as one system, while the long-term rail strategy will highlight climate resilience and adaptation as a clear priority, building on the £2.9 billion being invested between 2024 and 2029.—[Official Report, 3 November 2026; Vol. 792, c. 357WH.]
Written correction submitted by the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, the hon. Member for Wakefield and Rothwell (Simon Lightwood):
Simon Lightwood
Looking ahead, Great British Railways will address resilience across track and train as one system, while the long-term rail strategy will highlight climate resilience and adaptation as a clear priority, building on the £2.6 billion being invested between 2024 and 2029.
Written Statements
(1 day, 6 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Changes to the UK Designs Framework: Consultation Response
(1 day, 6 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Science, Innovation and Investment (Chris McDonald)
Today, the Government are publishing and laying before both Houses of Parliament their response to the consultation on changes to the UK designs framework. This publication marks an important step forward in ensuring that the UK designs framework supports designers and is fit for the digital age.
According to a Design Council report, the UK’s “design economy” makes a significant contribution and grew at nearly twice the rate of the UK economy between 2019 and 2023. Of the £136.7 billion that the design economy contributed to the UK in 2023, digital design accounted for 59%. It is vital that the designs system is modernised to support the digital design sector.
The design sector is made up predominantly of microbusinesses, which are businesses with fewer than 10 employees. Accessible and effective design protection is essential to help designers and businesses to thrive and continue contributing to economic growth.
In the autumn of 2025, the Government published a consultation on changes to the UK designs framework. The consultation set out proposals to create a designs system fit for the future, one that is simpler, more effective, and better able to support UK creativity and innovation, in a rapidly evolving digital landscape.
The consultation received responses from design businesses, legal professionals, academics, and representative and trade bodies. We have analysed each of these responses which have shaped a package of targeted reforms.
Today, the Government set out their intention to:
Modernise the designs system for effective protection of digital designs, including animated designs and graphical user interfaces.
Simplify aspects of the legal framework for unregistered designs, without reducing the breadth of protection that is a strength of the UK system.
Introduce a statutory 30-month deferment period for designers to keep their design confidential whilst making commercial preparations. This will align the UK more closely with EU and international design systems.
Allow supplementary unregistered designs to arise following global disclosure anywhere in the world.
Allow the registrar to conduct a targeted search and examination of design applications, to prevent registration of designs that are not new. This will reduce the burden on third parties to challenge invalid design registrations.
Widen access to enforcement by exploring how registered design disputes can be heard in the small claims track of the Intellectual Property Enterprise Court.
The Government are committed to ensuring that the UK is a world-leading environment for design and technology-driven innovation. We will continue to work closely with parliamentarians and stakeholders on implementation of these measures. Our aim is to build a designs system that protects creativity, supports growth and enables designers and businesses to make the most of their intellectual property.
[HCWS450]
Responsible Business Conduct
(1 day, 6 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Business, Innovation, Science and Trade (Jonathan Reynolds)
In the trade strategy, the Government committed to an evidence-based review of the UK’s approach to promoting responsible business conduct, to assess whether our current framework remains fit for purpose. This highlighted areas where the UK’s approach could be strengthened, and today I am updating the House on the Government’s proposed action to address those findings.
In our review, we found the UK’s current framework for preventing forced labour to be fragmented and overly reliant on voluntary action and reporting measures. While the Modern Slavery Act 2015 was world leading at the time of its introduction, international standards and legislative practice have since moved on, leaving the UK out of step with G7 partners and other major trading economies. While plans to strengthen the Modern Slavery Act through the Immigration and Asylum Bill are an important step, we recognise that further action is needed to bring us into line with key partners. Having carefully considered our findings, alongside the Government’s commitments on economic growth, reducing administrative burdens and maintaining the integrity of the UK internal market, we have concluded that a phased and proportionate approach is appropriate. The Government’s priority is to focus on those interventions most likely to deliver tangible improvements for workers, consumers and businesses, while ensuring that reforms are practical, targeted and capable of being implemented at pace.
We will legislate to introduce a mandatory human rights due diligence regime across the UK for services, and in Great Britain for goods. Only the largest businesses, with the capability and leverage to manage these risks within their supply chains, will be in scope. It will apply to UK businesses with a global turnover of over £350 million, as well as non-UK businesses with a UK-generated turnover of over £350 million. These businesses will be required to identify, assess and address risks of human rights abuses and labour exploitation within their operations and supply chains. The regime will be risk-based, proportionate and reflect how responsible businesses already manage risk by aligning with established international standards, including the OECD guidelines for responsible business conduct and the UN guiding principles on business and human rights.
Under this due diligence regime, we will introduce powers to be able to remove goods made with forced labour from the Great Britain market. A regulator will be empowered to investigate businesses suspected of placing such goods on the market and, where due diligence obligations have not been met and forced labour is identified, direct their withdrawal. This will provide a clear and targeted mechanism for tackling some of the most serious abuses in global supply chains and protecting responsible businesses from unfair competition.
In Northern Ireland, we will apply the EU’s forced labour regulation—EUFLR—under the Windsor framework. Both regimes ensure that goods made with forced labour can be withdrawn from the market and aim to deliver a similar effect in practice.
Alongside this, we will establish a centralised responsible business conduct guidance hub on gov.uk, bringing together guidance, tools and templates in a single location. This will support businesses, particularly those developing due diligence processes for the first time. We will work closely with stakeholders on the design and implementation of these measures and introduce them as soon as parliamentary time allows.
The Government are clear that reform must be proportionate and pragmatic. Requirements will focus on larger businesses best placed to manage supply chain risks, prioritise action over unnecessary paperwork and align with international standards.
This package will safeguard the competitiveness of responsible businesses, strengthen confidence in UK markets and help ensure that goods linked to forced labour do not reach UK consumers. The British public rightly expect that products sold in the United Kingdom are not tainted by forced labour. Responsible businesses should not be undercut by those that turn a blind eye to exploitation. And this Government will not countenance exploitation in the supply chains that serve the UK market.
[HCWS454]
Integrated Security Fund: 2025-26 Annual Report
(1 day, 6 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Security (Dan Jarvis)
I have today published the Integrated Security Fund’s 2025-26 annual report, which sets out how the fund has supported delivery of the Government’s national security priorities over the past year. The integrated security fund is the Government’s cross-Government national security fund, helping to tackle the most significant threats to the United Kingdom’s security at home and overseas.
The UK’s security environment is becoming more contested, complex and unpredictable. The threat from state-linked actors, terrorists and organised criminals is evolving rapidly, while advances in technology create both opportunities and new risks. In response, the Government must act early, work across departmental boundaries and bring together the full range of national security expertise. The fund enables that approach, investing more than £800 million during 2025-26 through programmes delivered across over 20 Government Departments and agencies to strengthen UK security, build the resilience of partners, and develop capabilities for the future.
This report demonstrates the tangible impact of that investment. At home, the fund strengthened resilience against cyber, economic and state-based threats, helping to protect critical national infrastructure, improve cyber-defences across Government and enhance intelligence sharing through the Government cyber co-ordination centre. It also supported action against cyber-enabled crime, fraud and organised criminal networks.
Overseas, the fund supported UK interests and partners facing the most acute security challenges. This included support to Ukraine and other partners in Eastern Europe in response to Russian aggression and hostile activity by foreign states, helping to strengthen cyber-security, counter disinformation and sustain essential services for vulnerable communities. The fund also enhanced maritime security in the middle east and helped partners tackle illicit finance and other threats to economic security.
The fund is also investing in the capabilities that will underpin the UK’s long-term resilience. Through programmes such as CyberFirst and TechFirst, it is developing the next generation of cyber and technology specialists, while investment in biosecurity is strengthening the UK’s ability to identify and respond to emerging biological threats.
As threats continue to evolve, in 2026 and beyond, the Government are using the fund to focus resources where they can have the greatest impact. From supporting Ukraine and strengthening cyber-resilience, to addressing challenges in the middle east and countering state-linked threats, the fund remains a vital instrument for protecting our country’s security, prosperity and interests. Through an integrated, agile and forward-looking approach, it will continue to play an important role in keeping the UK safe in an increasingly challenging world.
[HCWS451]
Northern Ireland Act 1998: Windsor Framework Decisions
(1 day, 6 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Intergovernmental Relations and European Relations (Mr Hamish Falconer)
On 10 November, I will be meeting with the European Commissioner for Trade and Economic Security, Maroš Šefčovič, for this Government’s third meeting of the withdrawal agreement joint committee. As part of this important meeting, the UK and the EU will take decisions to support our commitment to the Windsor framework.
This joint committee marks an important milestone in the lead up to the UK-EU summit on 20 November in Brussels, where we aim to strike important deals that will boost our growth in every postcode, cut red tape and provide more opportunities to young people. On the table are deals covering agrifood and drink products, emissions trading, a youth experience scheme and deeper co-operation on illegal immigration. The agreements we hope to strike at the summit will have further specific benefits for Northern Ireland—removing a wide-ranging set of sanitary and phytosanitary and agrifood requirements for goods moving from Great Britain to Northern Ireland. The decisions we make at the withdrawal agreement joint committee will be taken in line with the Government’s wider objectives.
At the joint committee, we will sign a joint declaration with the EU. The effect of this will be to ensure that “not at risk” parcels—that is, those sent to consumers in Northern Ireland moving under the Windsor framework facilitation schemes—will not be impacted by the recently introduced “handling fee” in the EU, ensuring they pay no fees or charges. These arrangements are the result of close UK-EU co-operation to protect Northern Ireland’s place in the UK internal market, while supporting its privileged dual-market access to the EU.
The Government will also agree specifically to decisions that will add two acts to the Windsor framework. This Government are committed to tackling barriers to trade for businesses across the UK. Northern Ireland has a special trading relationship with the EU under the Windsor framework, and it is therefore only right that the Government review all elements of Northern Ireland’s regulatory arrangements to ensure that it can make the most of its unique dual-market access.
In accordance with paragraph 18(3) of schedule 6B to the Northern Ireland Act 1998, I am setting out in this statement why I am of the opinion that the conditions are met for these particular measures to be agreed, on the basis that neither of those acts would create a new regulatory border between Great Britain and Northern Ireland, so the condition in paragraph 18(2)(b) of that schedule is met.
Forced Labour Protections—Regulation (EU) 2024/3015
This regulation will apply in Northern Ireland in order to preserve Northern Ireland’s unique and vital dual-market access to the EU and the rest of the UK internal market.
The decision to add the EU forced labour regulation to the Windsor framework is made in tandem with the Government’s decision to further eliminate human rights abuses and forced labour from UK-wide supply chains. This has been outlined in the Government’s written ministerial statement regarding their approach to responsible business conduct. These measures will introduce a mandatory due diligence regime across the UK for services, and in Great Britain for goods, with the aim that this will take effect alongside the application of the EU rules in December 2027.
This will include a targeted power to withdraw goods from the market in Great Britain where they are made with forced labour and a business has failed to meet the required standard of due diligence. As these measures aim to achieve the same outcome in practice as the EU forced labour regulation in Northern Ireland, supply chain risks should be intercepted and resolved in Great Britain before goods move to Northern Ireland.
This regulation’s application will not create a new regulatory border between Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Available trade data indicates that annual Northern Ireland imports involving potential forced labour risks represent a minimal proportion of overall trade. Furthermore, the EU forced labour regulation relies on intelligence-led investigations, rather than routine border checks. Any practical effect is expected to be minimal. As such, this regulation will have no material effect on the flow of goods within the UK internal market, preserving Northern Ireland’s unique and vital dual-market access to the EU and the rest of the UK internal market.
Artificial Intelligence Act—Regulation (EU) 2024/1689
This regulation will apply in a limited and targeted way in Northern Ireland. That is necessary to maintain an open border on the island of Ireland. Full application of the AI Act in Northern Ireland would not have been in line with the Windsor framework, or acceptable to the Government, given Northern Ireland’s integral role in the UK’s AI strategy—demonstrated by the £7.5 million investment for the Centre for Secure Information Technologies cyber AI hub at Queen’s University, announced last week at the Budget.
Following lengthy and constructive discussions with the EU, the AI Act as applied in Northern Ireland will apply only to the placing on the market of physical products with closely integrated AI systems. This is in contrast to the application in the EU, which also includes regulation of wider AI systems and stand-alone software incorporating AI, such as web-accessed applications and general purpose models.
The AI Act regulates AI systems based on the level of risk. Some systems are prohibited, such as those intended for social scoring, emotional manipulation or non-consensual nudification. Other systems are “high risk”—for example, because malfunctioning of AI could cause risks to human safety—and must meet certain requirements, such as those relating to data governance, technical documentation and risk and quality management systems. “Limited risk” systems engaging directly with people or generating synthetic outputs face lighter-touch requirements. Some AI systems do not fall into any of these categories.
This regulation will not create a new regulatory border. Its limited application means that Northern Ireland businesses that adopt or develop AI software, applications and online tools, will generally not be within scope of the AI Act, except when those AI systems are closely integrated in physical products. The regulation will mainly apply to physical products in scope of the Windsor framework that already adhere to EU law. This provides Northern Ireland manufacturers with certainty about their unique dual-market access to the EU market and the rest of the UK market. Furthermore, our assessment is that products subject to prohibitions or high-risk requirements are currently relatively rare, and that in any case, in many affected sectors, businesses supplying Northern Ireland are typically EU-facing, meaning that they will comply with EU law requirements.
The Government remain fully committed to ensuring that the UK maintains its position as a world leader in AI, and to supporting innovation while ensuring that a proportionate regulatory regime ensures that AI-enabled devices are safe, with risks being addressed by existing expert regulators and at a sectoral level. The Government have been clear in our ambition to support innovation and growth across the whole of the United Kingdom.
Next steps
The Government will shortly submit explanatory memoranda to Parliament pertaining to each of the two decisions that we will make. These will set out in further detail the Government’s view on any impacts that the above-mentioned regulations would have on Northern Ireland, as well as additional evidence I considered when reaching my conclusion that none of them would lead to a new regulatory border.
We are steadfastly committed to protecting the UK internal market and Northern Ireland’s place within it, as well as promoting growth in Northern Ireland through its unique dual-market access. These objectives will be realised not just through the decisions made at the joint committee, but through the agreements that we aim to secure at the UK-EU summit later this month.
I can confirm that the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland is writing to the Speaker of the Northern Ireland Assembly personally to update him on these next steps. I will place a copy of the Secretary of State’s letter to the Assembly Speaker in the Library of the House for future reference.
[HCWS455]
National Savings and Investments
(1 day, 6 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury (Torsten Bell)
On 19 May 2026 I updated Parliament on the steps being taken by National Savings and Investments to address historical failures in the handling of some bereavement claims and the remediation scheme established to reunite affected estates with funds that should have been returned earlier—HCWS44. I reported that up to 34,000 estates had been affected by this issue, with a total value of £367 million.
The Treasury instructed NS&I to put this right swiftly and fairly, requiring a delivery plan detailing how they intended to do so to be published in May1. It also appointed Sir Jim Harra, former first permanent secretary at HM Revenue and Customs, to take over as chief executive of NS&I on an interim basis, to provide a fresh start. Today, NS&I has provided an update on its delivery of its remediation programme, which it will continue to do on a quarterly basis until completion2.
As detailed in its update, NS&I has continued to analyse its data to establish how many estates have been affected by its bereavement claims issue. As such, the total number of estates affected has fallen to 30,300 cases, with a total value of approximately £181.9 million. Of these, NS&I is in the process of contacting all affected estates with holdings of £10 or more to reunite them with the full value of their holdings that should have been returned to them earlier and to compensate them. As reported in the update, this will see up to 15,600 estates with a total value of up to £181.83 million contacted.
The remediation programme remains underway, and NS&I continues to expect to complete this programme in the first half of 2027.
In addition, I have today laid NS&I’s annual report and accounts and product accounts 2025-26—HC 703. Alongside this, NS&I is also publishing an accounting officer assessment relating to its transformation programme3.
The annual report and accounts include a provision for the estimated costs of the remediation scheme. As the issue emerged after the supplementary estimate process had concluded, NS&I was unable to seek sufficient additional provision through that process. As a consequence, the Comptroller and Auditor General has issued an excess vote qualification on the accounts.
Today’s publications also provide an update on NS&I’s transformation programme. An updated business case setting out the delivery of a simplified solution has now been approved, and NS&I has published an accompanying accounting officer assessment setting out the rationale for proceeding with the revised approach and the steps being taken to address issues identified by independent reviews, the National Audit Office and the Public Accounts Committee. To increase its oversight of the programme, the Treasury has established a sponsor and oversight board that will act as the principal governance forum for considering and determining material programme trade-offs affecting cost, timelines, scope and benefits, and will provide Ministers with an assurance that the programme remains on track.
NS&I continues to be key to the Government debt financing programme. However, this has been a challenging year for the organisation. As I committed to the House, NS&I’s interim chief executive, Sir Jim Harra, has undertaken a review into the background to the bereavement claims issue and what lessons must be learned. That review will be published by the end of the calendar year. I have also appointed Luke Jensen as permanent chair of the NS&I board, further strengthening the organisation’s leadership and oversight as it delivers its priorities.
1https://www.nsandi.com/about-us/press-releases/2026/nsi-bereavement-claims-delivery-plan
2https://www.nsandi.com/about-us/press-releases/2026/nsi-bereavement-claims-quarterly-update
3https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/government-major-projects-portfolio-accounting-officer-assessment-nsi
[HCWS453]
Broadcast Media Mergers
(1 day, 6 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (Lisa Nandy)
On 15 October 2026, my Department wrote to Sky UK Ltd and ITV plc to inform them I was minded to intervene in the anticipated merger between Sky UK Ltd and ITV Media and Entertainment Holdings Ltd under the Enterprise Act 2002 and inviting them to submit representations. Having fully considered their representations, I have decided to issue a public interest intervention notice.
My decision to issue a PUN relates to concerns I have that public interest considerations specified in section 58 of the Enterprise Act 2002 may be relevant to the anticipated merger and that these considerations warrant further investigation.
At this stage, the issuing of a PUN triggers the requirement for the Competition and Markets Authority to report to me on jurisdictional and competition matters, and for Ofcom to report to me on the media public interest considerations in section 58 of the Enterprise Act 2002, specifically:
the need for free expression of opinion in news media;
the need for, to the extent that it is reasonable and practicable, a sufficient plurality of views in news media in each market for news media in the United Kingdom or a part of the United Kingdom;
the need, in relation to every different audience in the United Kingdom, or in a particular area or locality of the United Kingdom, for there to be a sufficient plurality of persons with control of the media enterprises, serving that audience.
Under section 42 of the 2002 Act, I may include new public interest considerations in an intervention notice for Ofcom to consider in relation to the merger, if I am of the opinion that they ought to be specified. I have informed the parties that I have also decided to intervene on the following public interest ground which is not currently specified in the Act, but which I believe should be:
the need for the availability throughout the United Kingdom of a wide range of (i) broadcasting; and (ii) on-demand programmes; which—in each case, taken as a whole—is of high quality and calculated to appeal to a wide variety of tastes and interests.
The legislation already specifies a public interest consideration on the need for the availability, throughout the UK, of a wide range of broadcasting which is both of high quality and calculated to appeal to a wide variety of tastes and interests. As I explained in my written statement dated 15 October, I believe that this consideration should be modified to apply to on-demand programmes as well as broadcasting, in line with modern viewing habits and my specific concerns regarding this merger.
Next steps
The decision letters to the parties, and other relevant updates, will be published on www.gov.uk: https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/the-anticipated-acquisition-of-itv-media-and-entertainment-holdings-limited-by-sky-uk-limited
I will bring forward legislation which amends section 58 of the Act to extend the application of the public interest consideration relating to the availability of a wide range of broadcasting, to on-demand programmes.
I have asked both the CMA and Ofcom to report back to me by 27 January 2027. Following these reports, I will need to decide whether to refer the matter for a more detailed investigation by the CMA under section 45 of the Act.
DCMS will update Parliament after both reports from the regulators have been received and considered.
Finally, on the evidence available to me I do not consider that my duty to issue a foreign state intervention notice has arisen. If new or additional information comes to light which suggests that a foreign state newspaper merger situation may be created as a result of the arrangements currently in progress being carried into effect, I will be obliged to refer the merger to the Competition and Markets Authority under section 70A of the Act.
[HCWS452]
UN Biodiversity Conference—COP17
(1 day, 6 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Jenny Riddell-Carpenter)
Nature underpins our food and water security, health, economic resilience and prosperity. The Government remain committed to halting and reversing biodiversity loss and to implementing the Kunming-Montreal global biodiversity framework at home and internationally.
The 17th conference of the parties to the convention on biological diversity—CBD COP17—concluded in Yerevan, Armenia, on 31 October. The conference adopted nearly 50 decisions, including the first global review of collective progress in implementing the Kunming-Montreal global biodiversity framework. The review found that, although progress is being made, the world is not on track to meet the framework’s 23 targets by 2030 without accelerated action. The United Kingdom played an active and constructive role in securing the central package of decisions needed to maintain international momentum towards 2030.
The principal outcome was agreement of the Yerevan pathway, the negotiated response to the first global review. It sets priorities for faster implementation, including reforming incentives harmful to biodiversity; increasing financial, scientific and technical support for developing countries; aligning national budgets and economic decisions with the global biodiversity framework; and strengthening planning, monitoring, reporting and review. The UK welcomes this assessment of the implementation gap and will continue to support practical action to turn global commitments into measurable results.
Parties also reached agreement on resource mobilisation. The outcome recognises the need to increase finance from all sources, establishes criteria to guide a financial mechanism for the period after 2030, and provides a voluntary route for additional countries to signal an interest in contributing.
COP17 also advanced the multilateral mechanism for sharing benefits from the use of digital sequence information on genetic resources and the Cali fund. The decision retained the voluntary approach for UK businesses and did not increase the indicative contribution rates agreed at COP16. It established temporary arrangements for allocating funding to developing countries and a programme of further work on the operation of the mechanism. Four UK companies have now contributed to the Cali fund, supporting biodiversity while protecting open research and innovation.
Further decisions enabled the new subsidiary body on article 8(j) to begin its work with the participation of indigenous peoples and local communities, and advanced co-operation on marine and coastal biodiversity, including with the agreement on biodiversity beyond national jurisdiction. The UK also helped secure recognition of the critical contribution of the intergovernmental science policy platform on biodiversity and ecosystem services, defending independent science and evidence-based decision making.
We were disappointed that not all of the COP’s work was completed within the time available, and that decisions on biodiversity and climate change and language on harmful subsidies were less ambitious than the UK had sought. Nevertheless, the overall package enables parties to continue accelerating implementation. The UK will continue to promote practical synergies between the Rio conventions and the reform of subsidies and other incentives harmful to biodiversity.
Alongside the negotiations, the UK announced £1.94 million to support the Wildlife Trusts’ purchase of the Rothbury estate, helping to secure a nationally important landscape for long-term nature recovery. The Wildlife Trusts and Northumberland Wildlife Trust will work with local communities, tenants and farmers to develop a shared vision for the estate, supporting wildlife, farming and rural livelihoods. Our 30by30 publication “From Commitment to Conservation”, which was launched during COP17, shows how countries, communities and conservation partners are turning the global 30by30 commitment into practical conservation outcomes. This is available online at:
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/delivering-the-30by30-commitment
The UK also announced that, over the next three financial years, around £6 billion of UK aid will support international climate finance, with around a quarter expected to benefit nature.
This builds on the UK’s £330 million pledge to the ninth replenishment of the global environment facility and our intention to invest £400 million in the tropical forests forever facility, supporting developing countries to protect nature and mobilise finance for standing forests. We have also convened the world’s first climate and nature security taskforce, bringing together expertise from across security, the military, academia and industry to strengthen our preparedness for the risks posed by climate change and nature loss. As the Foreign Secretary recently set out, building resilience to climate, economic and security shocks is a matter of both values and national interest. We will carry that focus into our G20 presidency, working with partners to strengthen resilience, protect shared prosperity and support greater global stability.
The Government also published “Growing Places: Mobilising Private Finance for Local Nature Recovery”, setting out how we will unlock private investment in nature by strengthening demand, building confidence in nature markets and helping local partners to develop investable projects. This is available online at:
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/mobilising-private-finance-for-local-nature-recovery
This will support nature recovery alongside sustainable growth and more resilient communities.
In England, we will drive delivery towards our 2030 global targets through the environmental improvement plan, backed by over £7 billion for nature recovery.
This includes delivering on our commitment to protect 30% of land and sea for nature by 2030—known as 30by30. We will also continue to reform agricultural subsidies, moving from land-based payments towards rewarding farmers for environmental benefits through environmental land management schemes, alongside food production. We will improve protected sites and are investing £26 million to support local nature recovery strategies to target action where it will have greatest impact. We will also invest £25 million in peatland restoration in 2027-28 to 2028-29, prioritising areas at greater wildfire risk, alongside support for land managers to create fire ponds and firebreaks. At sea, we will strengthen protection of marine habitats through fisheries management measures in English waters.
This sits alongside other measures to accelerate our work to drive nature recovery at home, including investing £60 million to support 130 conservation projects across England in 2026-27 to 2028-29, helping to support the recovery of over 350 threatened species. A further £30 million will support species recovery on the national forest estate, and another £30 million will support the creation of wildlife-rich habitat in protected landscapes. We will also support opportunities to reintroduce native species, as we have with bringing beavers back, where there are clear environmental and socioeconomic benefits.
COP17 delivered a balanced but hard-fought package, although it did not resolve every political disagreement. Further work will be required before COP18, which Ecuador will host in 2028. The UK will continue to work with parties and partners to accelerate implementation, protect the integrity of science, mobilise resources from all sources, and ensure that nature recovery supports security, prosperity and resilience.
[HCWS448]
DHSC and NHS England: Organisational Update
(1 day, 6 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Secretary of State for Health and Social Care (Yvette Cooper)
Over the summer I reviewed the Department of Health and Social Care’s reform plans, the legislation and the work underway across the Department and NHS England to deliver the vision set out in the 10-year health plan. I have been clear that our focus must remain on the health and care of patients and communities across the country, and on supporting the staff who deliver those services.
On 1 April 2027, subject to the passage of the Health Bill, we will bring NHS England back into the Department of Health and Social Care. As set out in the 10-year health plan, we cannot continue with two parallel national organisations carrying out so many overlapping and unco-ordinated functions. This is particularly important as we strengthen partnerships and integration between the NHS and social care, and shift more care into the community and towards prevention.
As we devolve power out to the frontline, the new DHSC must transform into a streamlined and agile organisation executing a core set of national functions effectively. The national centre should offer local areas a single vision, clarity on the future strategy, and a set of national priorities and minimum standards. It should also oversee the execution of a sophisticated and clear rules-based system that rewards success, co-ordinates an overall improvement offer and intervenes where performance falls short.
Before the 2012 reforms, most of these functions sat within the Department of Health. This included the period between 2006 and 2012, when the NHS achieved its strongest performance and public satisfaction levels. Our future model will therefore draw on that experience of effective national leadership and delivery, while reflecting the needs of today’s health and care system.
We will maintain the crucial role of the NHS chief executive and establish an NHS Group within DHSC, focused on NHS operational delivery and working alongside the Department’s other core responsibilities, including policy development, social care and public health.
The vast majority of NHSE’s current national delivery functions will transfer into the NHS Group. Elsewhere, we will bring together existing DHSC and NHSE expertise in combined teams, strengthening our ability to bring policy makers together with operational service delivery experts across a range of issues. This will be particularly important for areas such as neighbourhood health, where delivery depends on close working between the NHS, social care, other Government partners and the voluntary sector.
I want to see greater devolution to local organisations and communities, alongside closer alignment between the NHS, social care, MSAs—mayoral strategic authorities—and local councils.
We will therefore continue work and consultation on how boundaries, partnerships and the alignment of powers should evolve across regions, MSAs and local areas.
NHS regional teams will support this transition, given their knowledge of local circumstances, communities and patients needed to support performance improvement. These teams will not transfer into DHSC on 1 April 2027.
To support the continuing work of the seven existing regional teams, we will establish a transitional special health authority. It will be accountable directly to the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, through the NHS Group within the Department.
The transitional special health authority will not exercise national functions. Its purpose is to support existing regional teams, allowing them to remain close to the frontline organisations they support, rather than being centralised within the Department. We have agreed that this should be a temporary arrangement that will support the transition towards a more devolved model.
This can be achieved within the existing legislative framework and does not require amendments to the Health Bill. The legislation already provides for the establishment of the special health authority and for relevant functions of the Secretary of State to be conferred.
I also believe that decisions about care must be informed by the experiences of patients and the public. That is why I have chosen to retain and strengthen Healthwatch, and why the Department will soon appoint a new Patient Experience Director. This role will support patients and families who have experienced harm and injustice, listen to their concerns and help them get answers.
Alongside the voices of patients and families, we must draw more fully on the expertise of those who provide care. I will therefore establish the first clinical council, bringing together a small group of senior clinicians to strengthen clinical leadership across the system and advise Ministers on the NHS’s major clinical priorities. Their experience of treating patients and improving services will directly inform our decisions.
These reforms must help us get back to what the NHS does best: caring for people when they need it most. That is the purpose behind every target and every plan—not changing structures for their own sake, but so that patients get timely care and families get the support they need.
[HCWS447]
Law Enforcement: Biometrics, Facial Recognition and Similar Technologies
(1 day, 6 hours ago)
Written StatementsRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Minister for Policing and Crime (Sarah Jones)
I am today announcing the publication of the Government’s response to the public consultation on a new legal framework for law enforcement use of biometrics, facial recognition and similar technologies in England and Wales.
The consultation sought views on which types of data, technologies and activities should be covered by the framework, who the framework should apply to, and what safeguards and oversight should be in place to protect privacy and other rights. It received over 13,800 responses from members of the public, academics, industry, regulators, civil society groups, the police and others.
Analysis of responses showed support for a new statutory framework for use of technologies such as facial recognition by the police and others. Respondents emphasised the importance of strong safeguards, transparency, accountability, effective independent oversight and the protection of individual rights.
That is why the police reform Bill will introduce a new framework to underpin use of biometric and overt surveillance systems for law enforcement and some safeguarding purposes, by the police and other public bodies. The framework will ensure that policing can innovate in a repeatable and consistent manner, supporting adoption of emerging biometric and overt surveillance technologies that improve policing effectiveness and public protection. New powers will be supported by a statutory code of practice, and a new independent oversight body will monitor and enforce compliance.
Consultation responses also raised questions about private sector uses of biometric technologies. The police reform Bill will therefore also contain complementary measures to ensure that rules for private sector uses of technologies such as facial recognition for the prevention and detection of crime are consistent with law enforcement use, where this is appropriate.
A copy of the Government’s response and supporting materials will be placed in the Libraries of both Houses and published on gov.uk.
[HCWS449]