House of Commons
(1 day, 6 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Oral Answers to Questions
(1 day, 6 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Michelle Welsh (Sherwood Forest) (Lab)
Chris Murray (Edinburgh East and Musselburgh) (Lab)
The Minister for Women and Equalities (Bridget Phillipson)
The Government are taking decisive action to tackle child poverty, for instance by removing the two-child limit, expanding free school meals and rolling out Best Start family hubs. Measures in the child poverty strategy are expected to lift more than half a million children out of poverty in 2029-30. That is what Labour Governments do: they make the choices that lift children out of poverty.
Michelle Welsh
I am proud of what the previous Labour Government did in rolling out Sure Start services, and of the role that I played in Nottingham and Derby in that connection. Does the Minister agree that where people are born should not determine their future, and that connecting Sure Start to maternity services delivers hope and opportunity and pulls many children out of poverty, including those living in former coalfield communities in my constituency such as Ollerton, Blidworth, Rainworth and Clipstone?
Bridget Phillipson
I strongly agree with my hon. Friend. Sure Start was one of the proudest achievements of the last Labour Government. We are now bringing it to life for a new generation of children with Best Start family hubs, and I am delighted that from April next year we are expanding healthy babies funding to every local authority in England, giving every family access to trusted, practical support during those critical 1,001 days. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend, who has spoken so powerfully about what needs to change in maternity services so that all women receive care and support at that vulnerable period in their lives.
Chris Murray
Child poverty haunts Edinburgh. In Scotland’s capital there are more homeless children than there are in the whole of Wales, which is a shameful legacy of 20 years of Scottish National party rule. Worryingly, the Joseph Rowntree Foundation warned last month that we are set to miss our child poverty targets by a significant margin; one in five Scottish children are still in poverty. What conversations has the Minister had with Scottish Ministers about tackling child poverty, and will she press them to use some of the extra £18 billion that this Government have given the Scottish Government for Scotland’s poorest children?
Bridget Phillipson
Again, I strongly agree with my hon. Friend. Tackling child poverty is not just a moral imperative; it is an investment in our country’s future and our children’s future. The fact that so many children in my hon. Friend’s community grow up in poverty is a scar on their life chances and a scar on all of us, but this Labour Government are taking decisive action in lifting the two child-limit, which will benefit an estimated 94,000 children in Scotland. In England, we are also expanding Government-funded childcare for children under two, and I am sure that many Scottish families hope the SNP Government will do the same.
Rebecca Smith (South West Devon) (Con)
The Secretary of State recently announced the closure of the independent Social Mobility Commission and its replacement with a Government-run class unit. The commission existed to pose independent challenges to Ministers, whereas the new unit will report to Ministers. Many will conclude that abolishing an independent commission and replacing it with an internal Government body amounts to weakening scrutiny, at precisely the moment when the Government claim to be serious about tackling inequality and child poverty. How can we have confidence in the Government’s assessment of their own performance when the independent body established to provide that assessment has been abolished?
Bridget Phillipson
We have been squeamish about class for too long as a country, and we need to tackle the deep inequalities that hold back too many people. I do not believe that that should be outsourced. It should be central to the work of every single Government Department, which is why I have decided to establish a new class unit in Government that will focus on everything that holds people back in our country. The difference between our party and that of the hon. Lady is that we are serious about tackling child poverty, and during this Parliament we will lift more children out of poverty than any other Parliament on record.
Mr Jonathan Brash (Hartlepool) (Lab)
The Minister for Women and Equalities (Bridget Phillipson)
This Government are focused on giving people more breathing space. We are tackling the root causes of poverty through measures to make work pay, and are boosting the living wage so that no one has to go without the essentials. We are working with businesses to ensure that women are supported at work, and we support women’s health needs through our action plans too. We are ensuring that those with the greatest needs can access period products, with schemes that are already operating in schools and health settings.
Mr Brash
Will the Minister join me in paying tribute to my constituent Lyndsay Hogg for her tireless campaign to persuade businesses to provide free sanitary products in their public toilets? Lyndsay believes that we should go further and make that a legal requirement for businesses, ensuring that no woman or girl is ever prevented from participating fully in society because she has no access to essential sanitary products. Does the Minister agree that that could be a huge step forward in tackling period poverty, and will she agree to meet Lyndsay and me to explore how we can make this ambition a reality?
Bridget Phillipson
I pay tribute to Lyndsay, and I would be delighted to meet her and my hon. Friend to discuss what more we can do. It is good to see businesses and public services already opting to provide products, but it is right that, in parallel, we make sure that women have more money in their pockets and are lifted out of poverty. We are doing that by making work pay, cutting energy bills and scrapping the two-child limit, but I look forward to discussing this issue further with Lyndsay and my hon. Friend.
Christine Jardine (Edinburgh West) (LD)
Period poverty is a huge issue. The measures that the Minister has outlined are welcome, but it is a much wider issue. It has been estimated that women spend 20% more than men in their lifetimes on essential products—not cosmetics, but essential hygiene products. For a family with two or three children who are girls, that has a massive impact on their budget. Will the Government consider something that I have suggested often: looking at the pink tax—the extra money that women are charged—and doing something about it?
Bridget Phillipson
The hon. Lady raises a fair point and a fair challenge. No one should pay more for essential products, including health or hygiene-related products. I will pick up the issue with colleagues across Government, and I will come back to her with a full response.
Josh Newbury (Cannock Chase) (Lab)
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Simon Lightwood)
The code is explicit that trans people must remain protected under the Equality Act 2010, must have access to vital services and must not be subject to discrimination. This Government will always treat everyone with dignity and respect. As an independent regulator, it will be for the EHRC to monitor and review the impact of its guidance.
Josh Newbury
In the three months since the revised code of practice came into force, trans people have reported being forced out of all single-sex spaces, such as toilets for either gender, and they feel that the clock has been turned back to a time when their very existence was policed. That is clearly incompatible with their ongoing protections under the Equality Act, and I hope that it is not in the spirt of what the EHRC hopes to achieve. Will the Minister keep listening to the real-world experiences of trans people and, if necessary, tell the EHRC to look again at the code?
Simon Lightwood
The EHRC will keep the impact of its guidance under review. The code is clear that trans people should not be left without facilities to use. Where single-sex services are provided, service providers should consider alternative options, such as gender-neutral or individual self-contained facilities, to ensure that trans people are included. We expect service providers to take proportionate approaches that protect safety and privacy for everyone.
Noah Law (St Austell and Newquay) (Lab)
The Minister for Social Security and Disability (Sir Stephen Timms)
The Government are committed to travel being accessible to all. The English national concessionary travel scheme, for example, provides free off-peak bus travel throughout England for eligible older and disabled people. From 1 April, disabled passholders will be able to travel free of charge, at any time of day, across England.
Noah Law
I welcome the recent revision to the way the Motability changes are set to be delivered, which will ensure that people can apply for a mileage allowance if they are making journeys for healthcare, education, employment or other essential needs. There is also an automatic increase of up to 3,000 miles for rural users, which will go some way towards reducing the otherwise unfair impact of the changes on those living in rural areas. I am grateful for the representations of Labour Rural Research Group colleagues on this issue, and I am grateful to the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions for his nuanced approach, but what further steps are Ministers taking to support disabled travellers in rural areas?
Sir Stephen Timms
My hon. Friend makes a very important point, and I join him in welcoming the announcement by Motability, particularly to help drivers in rural areas. He will have heard what I said about the extension of the time at which the free bus pass can be used, starting from 1 April. Let me also point him to the fact that the Department for Transport is providing £10.5 million in 2026-27, including an additional £1.9 million this year, to support mobility centres around the country, which help disabled drivers, including those in rural areas, to stay mobile.
Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
I warmly welcome the extension of the travel hours for those with disabled bus passes, but there is one further step that is still necessary for disabled people who cannot travel on a bus without a companion. At the moment, whether a council allows the disabled bus pass to cover a companion is still discretionary. That needs to be made mandatory, because there is not much point in a disabled person having a free bus pass if the person who has to be with them has to pay the full fare.
Sir Stephen Timms
The right hon. Gentleman raises an interesting point, which I know my hon. Friends will be aware of. The Bus Services Act 2025 includes strengthened requirements for disability training for drivers and for customer-facing staff working for bus companies, but I will certainly reflect on his point.
Richard Quigley (Isle of Wight West) (Lab)
John Milne (Horsham) (LD)
The Minister for Equalities (Satvir Kaur)
Violence against women and girls is one of the biggest challenges of our time, which is why this Government have committed to halving it in a decade. Progress towards achieving that includes rolling out dedicated specialist teams in every police force, providing specialist rape and serious sex offence courtrooms, and introducing domestic abuse protection orders. We have launched a new taskforce to tackle misogyny, we are teaching children about healthy relationships in school and we are preparing legislation to make it impossible for children to take, share and view nude images.
Richard Quigley
Members will have heard me speak many times about the injustice of victims of sexual assault and rape on the Isle of Wight having to travel by ferry for evidence gathering and treatment, because of the lack of a sexual assault referral centre, yet these traumatic journeys continue and many victims tell me how they feel badly let down. Will the Minister meet me to discuss a way forward so that no one has to leave the island to access that essential service?
Satvir Kaur
I thank my hon. Friend for the work he does in supporting victims and survivors in his constituency. Victims and survivors of sexual violence should be able to access timely, sensitive and appropriate specialist support wherever they live. He is right to raise the gaps on the Isle of Wight, and I would of course be happy to meet him to see how together we can address that.
John Milne
Chart Way is a major pedestrian route into central Horsham, but its street lighting is operated by the owner of an adjacent office block that was recently purchased by a venture capital company. Unfortunately, the company in question has refused to turn on the lights or respond to any inquiry from councillors or my office, despite the fear felt by women and girls—and, indeed, the danger it creates—as the nights draw in. What avenues do we have to address this problem; can the Minister offer any assistance? We just do not seem to have any powers.
Satvir Kaur
The hon. Member is absolutely right that women and girls need to feel safe in public spaces. We are going further on this, with a cross-Government ministerial board—both the Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government and the Department for Transport are part of it—and I would be happy to work with him and other Departments to ensure that we get this right.
Olivia Bailey (Reading West and Mid Berkshire) (Lab)
Time and again, powerful men are abusing women and then trying to silence them. Every woman must be protected, so will Ministers ban the misuse of non-disclosure agreements for harassment and misconduct—for everyone, not just employees?
Satvir Kaur
We are clear that NDAs must never be used to cover up workplace harassment or discrimination. Reports this week have shown how important that is and the horrific consequences of imbalances of power. The Employment Rights Act 2025 will stop employers using NDAs to silence workers about harassment or discrimination in the workplace, and there is a consultation on going further and analysis of which groups will be included. We are also looking at what we can do about injunctions. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Minister for the Future of Work will be happy to write to her on this issue.
Lincoln Jopp (Spelthorne) (Con)
Thousands of prisoners are being released early on condition that they wear a security tag. Is the Minister aware of media reports that hundreds of prisoners are currently simply refusing, once released, to wear a tag? That must be deeply disturbing to the victims of their crime. Would she work with the Ministry of Justice to sort this out?
Satvir Kaur
We work incredibly closely with the Ministry of Justice. The truth is that we inherited a broken system, which we are fixing. What is important is that serious sexual offences are excluded, and we are supporting victims by introducing the toughest ever range of tools, including world first restriction zones.
Rebecca Smith (South West Devon) (Con)
Female genital mutilation is one of the most serious forms of violence against women and girls, yet the Government’s understanding of its prevalence is still based on figures from 2011, estimating that 137,000 women were living with FGM in this country. We cannot tackle what we do not measure, so if Ministers genuinely regard violence against women and girls as a national priority, will they stop relying on 15-year-old estimates and commission an urgent, comprehensive study to establish the true prevalence of FGM in Britain?
Satvir Kaur
We are going further than ever before to deal with honour-based abuse. On data, FGM is an under-reported crime and there is definitely work that we can all be doing to ensure that we are raising awareness. A campaign to raise awareness is about to be launched, so that we can get victims to come forward and support them.
Marie Goldman (Chelmsford) (LD)
Yesterday, ITV News and The Guardian reported disturbing allegations, only possible thanks to the courage of the women who came forward, of grooming and sexual misconduct made against the celebrity David Walliams. Among the disgusting allegations of sexual advances to girls as young as 15, the years-long investigation also describes how one of the women received a threatening letter from Walliams’s lawyers demanding a written promise that she never speak about her experiences. Will the Minister meet me and my hon. Friend the Member for Chichester (Jess Brown-Fuller) to discuss, cross-party, how we work to end the manipulation of the justice system by rich and powerful men who try to silence their victims?
Satvir Kaur
If this week has shown us anything, it is that no one is above the law. We have heard a lot about rich, powerful men using their positions to use and hurt women and girls, but these are also stories of strong women, both the victims and those in the media who expose perpetrators in positions of power. I pay tribute to their bravery and courage in coming forward to speak about deeply personal experiences so that justice can be served. We all have a responsibility to root out abuse wherever it is found. The Government are working tirelessly to ensure that offenders are held to account and victims are supported. I will, of course, be happy to meet and to work cross-party.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
The Minister for Equalities (Sir Stephen Timms)
The Equality Act 2010 places an anticipatory duty on service providers to make reasonable adjustments so that disabled people are not placed at a substantial disadvantage compared to non-disabled customers.
Jim Shannon
I thank the Minister very much for that answer, but he will know that in Northern Ireland the disability employment gap remains, at 40.3%, the largest in the whole of the United Kingdom. Persistently low employment rates are particularly concerning following the loss of the European social fund financial support, which previously aided many employment services and disabled people in Northern Ireland. What discussions will the Minister have with the relevant Minister back home in Northern Ireland to secure sustainable replacement funding for those services, and to ensure that disabled people have the support and opportunities they need to access public services in the United Kingdom, including Northern Ireland?
Sir Stephen Timms
The hon. Gentleman raises an extremely important point. The disability employment gap has been stuck at the same level across the UK pretty much since 2010. We have committed an extra £3.5 billion over this Parliament to improve employment support for disabled people and others out of work who have complex barriers. We are rolling out Connect to Work across England and Wales. I very much hope that that funding and the Barnett consequentials will enable similar improvements in Northern Ireland.
Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)
I recently met a resident in my constituency who is blind and relies on an assistance dog to get about in his local area of Nazeing. One of the biggest challenges we face across Harlow is the problem of pavement parking and how that affects people who are partially sighted. What conversations has the Minister had with the Department for Transport to tackle pavement parking to make it easier for those who are partially sighted or blind to get around?
Sir Stephen Timms
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising that issue. There are serious concerns for people who are partially sighted or have a sight impairment. I am in conversation on that and hope we can make some progress.
Paula Barker (Liverpool Wavertree) (Lab)
The Minister for Women and Equalities (Bridget Phillipson)
Women and girls should never have to shrink our lives or ambitions because of outdated misogynistic attitudes. The appalling testimonies we have heard in recent days underline how much further we have to go. I pay tribute to all the women who have shown such bravery in coming forward and sharing their experiences. The misogyny taskforce will help to tackle misogyny in workplaces, communities and online. It is backed by £15 million, which we are working with businesses and philanthropists to grow. The Government are clear that misogyny has no place in our society and it is time to consign those attitudes to history.
Paula Barker
A report in July by the Women and Equalities Committee found that black people are four times more likely to experience homelessness than people who are white. In 2025-26, black people made up 2% of households in Liverpool, with 12% of those recorded homeless, or at risk of being so. Despite the Government’s welcome commitment to end rough sleeping, they are still to respond to the Committee’s report. Will the Minister chase that urgently and set out what steps the Office for Equality and Opportunity is taking to ensure that the rough sleeping programme addresses the specific challenges facing black people experiencing homelessness?
Bridget Phillipson
The Committee’s report provides important evidence on the experiences of black people facing homelessness, and I can assure my hon. Friend that the Government will respond shortly. Last month, I visited Liverpool with Baroness Lawrence and the race equality engagement group, and we heard about how real efforts are being made to build stronger communities and tackle racism, and how important it is that there is safe and secure housing for ethnic minority communities across our country.
Rebecca Smith (South West Devon) (Con)
The Secretary of State has made class a central theme of her equalities agenda, but before she can tackle class-based disadvantage, she must surely be able to define it, so what is her definition of class and how will her Department identify who is and who is not working class?
Bridget Phillipson
It is important that we take action on the disadvantage that holds people back by virtue of family background and income. We intend to enact the socioeconomic duty, which will ensure that all public authorities take seriously their responsibility in how they design and deliver public services. I am grateful for the shadow Minister’s interest in this area and look forward to working with her to ensure that we finally take class seriously as a country.
Josh Newbury (Cannock Chase) (Lab)
Bridget Phillipson
Abusive conversion practices have no place in our country, and no one should face abuse because of who they are or who they love. We have brought forward a draft Bill for pre-legislative scrutiny because we want to get it right. I look forward to the Joint Committee’s recommendations and to working across the House to finally deliver that long-overdue ban.
Dr Neil Shastri-Hurst (Solihull West and Shirley) (Con)
Bridget Phillipson
The Equality and Human Rights Commission is responsible for ensuring that public bodies honour their responsibilities and provide appropriate single-sex spaces, as well as ensuring that we have services available for everyone in our country. Government Departments have also published guidance so that we can be clear about how we will deliver on our responsibilities, but we recognise and will uphold the ruling of the Supreme Court.
Graeme Downie (Dunfermline and Dollar) (Lab)
Bridget Phillipson
I commend Dunfermline Athletic for a powerful example of what can be achieved in that kind of partnership with Samaritans. It is important that we are all able to seek help when we are experiencing mental health challenges. Suicide is one of the biggest killers of men in our country, which is why the work that the Minister for men and boys, my hon. Friend the Member for Rother Valley (Jake Richards), is leading is incredibly important in ensuring that everyone can access timely support, so that we do not see a single person lost to suicide wherever we can prevent it.
Munira Wilson (Twickenham) (LD)
Bridget Phillipson
As the Prime Minister has set out, we believe that it is important that that recognition is there. I am very sorry to hear about the experiences of the hon. Lady’s constituent, and if she would like to discuss that further with a Minister, I can certainly ensure that takes place. In recent times we have seen shameful comments that trivialise the experiences of women, and we must all be clear, right across society, that violence against women and girls is abhorrent, there can be no excuses and those who commit acts of violence and sexual violence against women should face the full force of the law.
Carolyn Harris (Neath and Swansea East) (Lab)
Thank you, Mr Speaker—[Interruption.] On behalf of menopausal women around the world, I thank the House for that warm welcome. According to the big Menopause Mandate 2026 survey, 90% of working women say that symptoms affect them at work, yet only 39% of their employers have a menopause policy. How will the Government ensure that the menopause action plans set to be introduced next year will be implemented and monitored to support women through that very important stage of their life?
Bridget Phillipson
My hon. Friend has been an incredible campaigner on this issue and has done so much to help women across our country. We are taking action as a Government, ensuring that big employers have to produce action plans to say how they will support women going through the menopause, which many already do, because they know it is an incredible waste of talent to see women leaving brilliant jobs and careers just when they are getting into their stride.
Ben Obese-Jecty (Huntingdon) (Con)
Bridget Phillipson
We will be holding a summit, because we recognise that there is more to do to support men and boys in our country, especially around issues like mental health, as I touched on earlier. I will ensure that the relevant Minister gives the hon. Gentleman an update on the date for that.
Mr Speaker
Before we come to Prime Minister’s questions, I welcome to the Gallery the President of the Massachusetts State Senate and her delegation.
Claire Hanna (Belfast South and Mid Down) (SDLP)
The Prime Minister (Andy Burnham)
As we have just done in the past hour, we remember all those who made the ultimate sacrifice in the service of our country. We honour the courage and bravery of all our armed forces. No one who has served our country should ever sleep rough on our streets. I have today written to all English councils, as part of our drive on rough sleeping, to ask that an offer of accommodation be made to all ex-forces ahead of the winter break. I hope that Members across the House will work with their councils to ensure that happens.
Over the weekend, a British national was sadly killed and another injured in the terrible shooting in Krakow. Our thoughts are with the families, who we will support in whatever way we can. Of course, the UK stands with the people of Poland, as I have assured Prime Minister Tusk.
This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in this House, I shall have further such meetings later today.
Claire Hanna
Humour me for a moment and imagine that one party in this Parliament could, if it did not like the way the political winds were blowing, refuse to take part and bring Westminster to a standstill. That would be unthinkable here, but in Stormont the abnormal has become routine. We have watched parties taking turns at collapsing government for years at a time. We have watched policies blocked not by the strength of an argument, but by vetoes that were designed for inclusion. It seems like dysfunction is easier than actually doing the work, and ordinary people are paying the price. Wherever you want to go constitutionally, the path is through making a fist of things and offering people a decent life. It is worth saying that every poll shows that more people are working towards a new Ireland. Stormont is in its dying days if urgent steps are not taken to make it more productive and stable. Will the Prime Minister commit to working with us and others on a politics for the common good to end the cycle of dysfunction and despair?
The Prime Minister
Can I say to my hon. Friend that I know exactly where she is coming from? We all want to see Stormont up and running and delivering for the people of Northern Ireland, particularly as we approach the 30th anniversary of the Good Friday agreement. My right hon. Friend the Northern Ireland Secretary is working hard with colleagues across all parties in Northern Ireland to settle a budget for this year and to consider further ideas for reform of Stormont. We will continue to do whatever we can to bring the parties together. It is incumbent on us all to get Stormont up and running as soon as possible.
Mrs Kemi Badenoch (North West Essex) (Con)
On this Armistice Day, we remember the courage and sacrifice of those who served our country and those who gave their lives for us. We owe them and their families an enduring debt of gratitude.
The Prime Minister entered Downing Street promising a 10-year plan to reverse 40 years of neoliberalism. Is it really true that he has so little vision for this country that he needs the Boston Consulting Group to write it for him?
The Prime Minister
I did walk into Downing Street promising a 10-year plan for this country, because I am determined to give this country the stability that the Conservatives failed to provide, and I am determined to give the leadership that this country needs. I can say to the right hon. Lady that we will present our plan for Britain to this House before it rises for the Christmas recess.
Mrs Badenoch
I am not surprised that the Prime Minister has asked management consultants to help him write his 10-year plan—he needs all the help he can get. We have heard one thing that will be in it: he is merging the DVLA with the DVSA. [Hon. Members: “Ooh!”] Exciting stuff, Mr Speaker. It is no wonder that Labour MPs are already telling The Guardian that it is a “tragic joke”. This Government are adrift. Two weeks ago we had a “do nothing” Budget. It pushed all the big decisions, like funding our defence, into the spending review, but we have no idea when that will be. He has talked about the 10-year plan. Can he assure the House that the spending review will come before next summer?
The Prime Minister
The right hon. Lady mentions the Budget—the most popular Budget for a number of years, I have to say—which helped people with the cost of living crisis. Can she explain why the Conservatives voted against a bank levy that will deliver a council tax cut for 20 million households in January? It was a big decision to oppose that, and she needs to explain why she took that decision.
There will be a proposal for a national care service in the 10-year plan. The covid inquiry recently said that social care was an “afterthought” for the Conservative party. We will also present the Milburn report to this House next week. We will put forward a plan to this House and the country for a safe and sustainable way to bring the welfare bill down and get young people into work.
Mrs Badenoch
I think it was popular compared to the former Chancellor’s Budget. I asked the Prime Minister to confirm when the spending review will be, and we did not get an answer. All the waffle he gave us there was kicking everything into the long grass. Meanwhile, the Iranians are threatening our bases today, but he cannot tell us when his Government will properly fund our defence. But he has so much time on his hands that last night he attended a speech by the head of the civil service. He is supposed to be telling her his plan, not sitting in the audience while she tells him hers.
There was one worthwhile thing in the Budget: the Rosebank oilfield. The Chancellor has already banked the tax revenue, but there is just one problem: Rosebank has not been approved. If it is not going to be approved, why was it in the Budget?
The Prime Minister
The right hon. Lady knows that the Rosebank decision is a quasi-legal decision and it will be taken in due course. She stood at the Dispatch Box a moment ago and said that this Government are not taking big decisions. We did approve the Jackdaw gasfield. Today £12 billion is going into renewable energy. These are big decisions. Yesterday she put forward what she considers a big decision: £36 billion of cuts. Does she accept that so many of the people affected by what she announced are working people—people whose incomes will be hit hard in a cost of living crisis? I think the right hon. Lady needs to answer why she would make the cost of living crisis harder for people through the cuts she has just announced?
Mrs Badenoch
I asked the Prime Minister about Rosebank. He says that it is a quasi-judicial decision. It is a political decision. Why else did it take the Labour Government two years to approve Jackdaw while the Foreign Secretary was in charge, but now he is gone it happened just like that? This is the real reason they did not do it: the Foreign Secretary instructed Government lawyers not to fight the court case. He called Rosebank “climate vandalism”—but then he also thought that cosying up to Russell Brand would make him Prime Minister, so I do not think we need to trust his judgment. [Interruption.] Labour Members are saying “Shame”—they are right, the Foreign Secretary should be ashamed. Meanwhile, the Chancellor is already banking the tax revenue from Rosebank in his calculations. Why will the Prime Minister not just approve Rosebank?
The Prime Minister
Correct me if I am wrong, but the Jackdaw decision that the last Government tried to take was struck down, because they made it overtly political—that was why they could not take that decision. The right hon. Lady comes to the House handing out lectures week after week, but maybe she needs to look a little closer to home as to why the last Government failed to take that decision. We will take a further decision on Rosebank in due course, as well as building a renewable energy future, which is what we are also announcing today. We are facing the big issues and we will lay that out in the 10-year plan. This country was going backwards under the Conservative party. We are leading it forward. We are bringing people back together. We are giving people hope. She is voting against the help that we just announced in the Budget. When will she directly address the cost of living crisis in this House?
Mrs Badenoch
I ask the questions here and I am asking about Rosebank—it was literally in the Budget. The reason why the Prime Minister will not approve it is because Government Members are all squabbling, or maybe he does not want it hanging over his head at COP. It is not just the Foreign Secretary, because 50 of his MPs do not want it either, led by the current Energy Secretary, and she is only in the job because the Culture Secretary turned it down.
Today the Government are in court defending our right to drill oil and gas off the Falklands. At the same time, they are passing legislation to ban drilling off Scotland. This is ludicrous. Why is it acceptable to drill oil and gas in the Falklands but not in the North sea?
The Prime Minister
The right hon. Lady has not been paying attention. We recently approved the Jackdaw gasfield in the North sea—something that she failed to do when she was in government—and through the energy wealth fund created by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor, we are using the proceeds to accelerate the delivery of renewables. Today we are announcing two offshore wind projects—off the coast of East Anglia and off the east coast of Scotland—in part funded by the National Wealth Fund.
If the right hon. Lady wants to address energy policy, perhaps we can talk about why energy bills went up and up under the Conservatives. Perhaps we can discuss how they lost public control, lost control of people’s bills and left people paying more and more. We are removing standing charges from gas bills, which will bring people’s bills down, and we are going to do the same by looking at reforming standing charges on electricity bills. We have taken VAT off electricity bills. Also, through all those efforts, we will speed up the delinking of gas and electricity prices, getting bills down over the long term. That is an energy policy, and the Conservative party could have done with one when they were in office.
Mrs Badenoch
There was a lot of waffle there, but I did not hear why it is all right to allow oil and gas drilling in the Falklands but not in the North sea. The Prime Minister sounds confused: he did not seem to know that he is legislating to ban oil and gas drilling. The Government are totally adrift—they need consultants to tell them what to think and civil servants to tell them what to do—so we are left with a “do nothing” Budget, a spending review delayed and a 10-year plan outsourced. Meanwhile, the whole country is in limbo. Labour MPs want to pretend that Keir Starmer simply walked off into the sunset, but in reality this man knifed him in the back and now does not know what to do. Is not the truth that they are all sat there shaking their heads, wondering whether it was all worth it?
The Prime Minister
I have told the right hon. Lady today what I am doing. Whether she was listening or not, people at home will have heard that I am bringing forward a national care service, when the Conservatives ignored social care for years and years. I am acting to get people’s energy bills down, when the Conservatives did not. I listen to her talking at the Dispatch Box as though they got everything right. A quarter of a million young people became NEETs—not in education, employment or training—between 2021 and 2024, when she was in the Cabinet. The welfare bill rose by £33 billion in her last year in office, when she was in the Cabinet. When will she come to this House with real proposals to address those things, rather than repeating more of the same? Next month, she will see our plan for Britain presented to this House. It will lay a new path for this country to go forward, breaking with the failed policies of the Conservative party. She is going to have to come up with better than that if she is going to take on what we are putting forward.
Mrs Elsie Blundell (Heywood and Middleton North) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
The Leader of the Opposition began by talking about the biggest changes in 40 years. We all remember when the Conservative party deregulated buses across this country, and the bus fares that left people paying. This is still happening in many parts of the country, because services are still deregulated. People can pay £3 or £4 for a single journey in many Conservative Members’ constituencies. We will put a £2 cap on those bus fares next year. Because we put the buses under public control in Greater Manchester, and because we reversed 40 years of deregulation, we can introduce the service that my hon. Friend is calling for. I used to support that in my previous job; I cannot speak for the current Mayor of Greater Manchester, but I hope she does the same.
Ed Davey (Kingston and Surbiton) (LD)
As we mark Armistice Day, may I join the Prime Minister in honouring the incredible sacrifices made by all those who paid the ultimate price as they served our country? We will remember them. May I also welcome the announcement of new offshore wind farms, and remind the Prime Minister that they are coming in through a Liberal Democrat policy that we brought in when in government?
Our politics has been affected by poisonous ideas, such as the idea that people born and raised in England cannot be English because they are not white. Shamefully, even some in this House have argued for that racist ideology. We must reject it, as the Conservative leader, to her great credit, has done. We should start with the census; when it asks about ethnicity, the only English option is “White English”. My hon. Friend the Member for Eastbourne (Josh Babarinde), a proud Englishman, introduced a Bill yesterday to change that, and to create new options such as “Black English” and “Asian English”. Will the Prime Minister support his Bill?
The Prime Minister
I echo the right hon. Gentleman’s comments at the start. We all pay tribute to our armed forces today. I also echo him in praising the Leader of the Opposition, as I did from this Dispatch Box a few weeks ago. On some issues, we should rise above party politics; we should recognise when things are completely unacceptable and make common cause against them. I have not looked at the detail of the Bill, but I stand here thinking that I would want to support it, to directly take on the poisonous politics that we have seen from some in this House who are seeking to divide us. We must move on from a decade of division and drift in this country. We must bring people back together. I am interested in working with anyone in this House who shares that aim.
Ed Davey
I thank the Prime Minister for that reply, and I hope it means that he is inviting my hon. Friend for a meeting to discuss his Bill. Turning to welfare, we cannot leave young people without the dignity of work and the chance to get on, and we need to bring the welfare bill down, but the blame does not lie with young people. It primarily lies with the Conservatives, who tanked the economy and sent the welfare bill soaring—and Labour has made things worse with its jobs tax. Businesses cannot hire young people in the UK while they are battling unfair taxes and tied up in Brexit red tape, so will the Prime Minister do the single biggest thing to cut welfare and help young people into work: grow the economy by joining the single market?
The Prime Minister
No is the answer to that, today. We are honouring our manifesto pledge to have deeper ties. There is the prospect of a deal with Europe that could add up to 0.4% to GDP—[Interruption.] The Opposition laugh at growth in our economy. This is the Conservative party! Any growth on that scale is worth taking, and we will take it. We will seek that deal. On young people, I agree with what the right hon. Gentleman has said. Young people need support to get into work. To cut their benefits without that support is wrong. I mentioned a statistic a moment ago: a quarter of a million young people were NEET in the last three years of the last Conservative Government. That is because that Government rejected the report from Sir Kevan Collins that would have given young people better mental health support and other support. That is why we saw the huge rise in the number of young people not in education, employment or training. We need to grow our economy. We need to rethink the support we give to our young people. We need an education system that is both academic and technical—that is balanced between the two—and my right hon. Friend the Work and Pensions Secretary will set out those reforms as we embark on our response to the Milburn report next week.
Alan Strickland (Newton Aycliffe and Spennymoor) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
My hon. Friend is a champion for the north-east, and particularly for reindustrialisation, which we are completely committed to in his region. The issue he raises is a live process, and I have to say to him that no final decisions have yet been made, but we are determined that our decision will drive good jobs in his region and reindustrialisation across the country, as well as building the defence and the security of the United Kingdom.
Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North) (Your Party)
The whole world is appalled and disgusted at what is now happening in Gaza, where people are dying for want of food and medicine and because of the lack of aid and the terrible flood there. Will the Prime Minister ensure that aid gets to Gaza? And if Israel will not deliver that aid, will he ensure that Britain and other countries deliver aid directly, given the desperation of the people of Gaza, 100,000 of whom have already died? Will he also support an inquiry on our participation in the bombardment of Gaza through the supply of weapons and security information to Israel, so that the truth can be told about the horror that the Palestinian people have faced, and continue to face?
The Prime Minister
The humanitarian situation in Gaza remains heartbreaking, and we are doing everything that we can to put pressure on the Israeli Government to allow the necessary aid into Gaza and to lift the restrictions on it. We have also taken further steps on sanctions, particularly in relation to the settlements on the west bank, to make sure that we preserve the viability of a two-state solution. We await the outcome of the negotiations following the Israeli general election, but the right hon. Member can be certain that we will continue to pursue the path that we have set out.
Mary Kelly Foy (City of Durham) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
I know there are thousands of women in the north-east affected by the breast surgery scandal that my hon. Friend mentions, and I will ensure that my right hon. Friend the Health Secretary provides all the support that they need to get the help and the answers that they must have. I am also prepared to meet my hon. Friend to discuss the situation regarding hospital services in the north-east, and I will make sure that happens soon.
Ian Sollom (St Neots and Mid Cambridgeshire) (LD)
The Prime Minister
It is a very powerful case that the hon. Member makes, and it is unfair—there is no other way of putting it. We are not waiting to make improvements; we are increasing the minimum income guarantee for 150,000 disabled adults. I realise that does not answer the question that he has raised on behalf of Maxwell today, but I am sure he is also speaking for many people across the country. Baroness Casey is conducting her review, and I urge him to put that point to the review. We will have cross-party talks on adult social care before the end of the year.
Martin Rhodes (Glasgow North) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
We are considering tougher regulations for the sale of non-compliant e-bikes and conversion kits across the UK. We will, of course, work with the Scottish Government to ensure that they apply in Scotland, whatever we decide. I agree with my hon. Friend: the safety risks posed by e-bikes that are going at excess speeds need to be stopped.
Mr Gagan Mohindra (South West Hertfordshire) (Con)
The Prime Minister
The Health Secretary and I did visit Watford general. We were very impressed with what is happening at the hospital to address corridor care, and with the improvements that it has made. I know Watford has been waiting a long time for its new hospital. I think we need to look both at Watford general and the Mount Vernon site together in considering what change is made, but I do believe Watford has waited long enough, and I will be working with the Health Secretary to make sure we move quickly on a new hospital for Watford as quickly as possible.
Kirith Entwistle (Bolton North East) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
This is one for the Mayor of Greater Manchester rather than for me, but I am aware that a proposal was developed that would bring a tram-train service through Bolton North East. As I said before, I did favour that option in my previous job; I favour it in this job. We will see if we can make a business case to bring it forward.
Dame Caroline Dinenage (Gosport) (Con)
The Prime Minister
The hon. Lady asks me what message I have for her constituents. The message is that we will work with their Member of Parliament to hold to account those who caused the damage to those properties and businesses, but also to provide the support they need in the situation they are in. I understand she is meeting the Border Security Minister later today to discuss those issues further. Because the Government have been successful in stopping small boat crossings, the gangs are changing their tactics, but we will continue to chase them down. As we do, we will ensure that we learn from what happened and improve the arrangements going forward.
Andrew Cooper (Mid Cheshire) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
I understand that there is a legal challenge to the guidance, but notwithstanding that, we will ensure that it is finalised as soon as possible. I will arrange for the relevant Minister to meet my hon. Friend to give him a full update.
Bob Blackman (Harrow East) (Con)
The Prime Minister
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to say what he has just said, and we honour the service of everybody who fought alongside British service personnel fighting Nazism in the second world war. It was uplifting to see the representation of all those communities at the Cenotaph on Sunday. I was there with the right hon. Lady the Leader of the Opposition, and it is always the most moving of moments. But we must never forget the contribution, as he rightly says, of people across the Commonwealth supporting and standing alongside Britain and the people in those countries who made the ultimate sacrifice, too.
Feryal Clark (Enfield North) (Lab)
The Prime Minister
I would love to do so, when my diary allows. SEND reform is coming through. It is part of what we need to do in response to the Milburn report, to rethink how we support young people growing up, and how we have the right experts on site in our schools to give children the speech and language therapy, and other support that they need, so that they do not fall behind and they do not miss out. I would love to come to see the school at some point, as a beacon of best practice in supporting young people with additional needs.
John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con)
The Prime Minister
We have provided extra funding to local authorities to help with precisely the situation that the hon. Gentleman’s constituent is in. We have also provided funding through the Barnett consequentials in relation to VAT on electricity—[Interruption.] If I could just finish the point. We have given extra support to the devolved Administrations—sorry, not in relation to VAT, but in relation to the support we have provided in the Budget. There is extra help that the Scottish Government can use alongside what we have already done, and we will ensure everybody is supported this winter.
Ms Diane Abbott (Hackney North and Stoke Newington) (Lab)
There has been a lot of talk recently about immigrants and the need to frame legislation to ensure they make a contribution. My parents were immigrants, and my mother was a nurse. She was one of the wave that helped to build the NHS after the war. To this day, immigrants make a very important contribution to the NHS and the care system. Does the Prime Minister agree that we should never forget to honour the contribution of generations of immigrants to this society?
The Prime Minister
My right hon. Friend speaks very powerfully on this issue from personal experience. I can also share mine as I saw people from around the world caring for my dad. She is absolutely right that we must celebrate their contribution, as I did in my speech at the party conference. We must take on a politics that seeks to say to those people that they have no place here, because they do.
Sir Julian Lewis (New Forest East) (Con)
The Prime Minister
The right hon. Gentleman asks about the Russian threat that we face today compared with the cold war. With rapid changes in technology, including AI, cyber-warfare and autonomous systems, we face new complex threats, which is why we are fully funding the defence investment plan and investing in the modern capabilities needed for the future.
Sir Julian Lewis
I think that answer suggests that the Prime Minister accepts that the threat we face today is comparable in dangerous intensity to that we faced during the cold war years. If that is the case, may I urge him to try to persuade his fellow Ministers to stop using the standard line that the Government have made the greatest increase in defence spending “since the end of the cold war”? At the end of the cold war, the threat largely declined, but we have to look at the level of spending during the cold war, which was regularly at 4.5% to 5% or more during the 1980s. As someone who has criticised successive Governments for cuts I am not trying to make a partisan point, but please stop making a comparison between the post-cold war years and now. The threat we face now is similar to that of the cold war years, and our defence investment has to match that level.
The Prime Minister
I assure the right hon. Gentleman that there is no complacency here. I understand the seriousness of the points that he is making, but, in the two years that this Government have been in office, we have seen the biggest sustained increase in defence spending since the cold war period. That is important, and that will continue. The Chancellor set out a path to increased defence spending as we go through the next decade to honour our NATO commitments, but we have to recognise that the threat is different; it is multifaceted, and we will address it on every level.
Andy MacNae (Rossendale and Darwen) (Lab)
The Prime Minister has rightly championed reindustrialisation. That is a powerful vision that resonates in Rossendale and Darwen and across the country; through it, people see the opportunity for good jobs in the places that need them the most. The Budget lay out the framework for reindustrialisation as an engine for growth and national resilience. Does he agree that the next step is to embed a truly ambitious reindustrialisation strategy in his 10-year plan? Will he meet me and members of the 90-strong Reindustrialisation Research Group to discuss how we can achieve that together?
The Prime Minister
I will meet the group, and I agree with my hon. Friend. The 10-year plan must lay out a compelling vision for the reindustrialisation of Britain.
Graham Leadbitter (Moray West, Nairn and Strathspey) (SNP)
The Prime Minister
That is a very unfair comment, if I may say so, on the very day that the National Wealth Fund has committed £1 billion of funding to support offshore wind off the east coast of Scotland. I would have thought that the hon. Gentleman would stand up and welcome that announcement.
Bill Presented
(1 day, 6 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Compulsory Purchase (Fees)
(1 day, 6 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate
Leigh Ingham (Stafford) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make provision about excluding legal and professional fees from compensation payable by local authorities to persons whose properties are, in certain circumstances, subject to a compulsory purchase order; and for connected purposes.
That is a mouthful, so let me explain what I mean. Across our country, in towns, villages and city centres, there are buildings that tell a story. Some tell a story of success—an old department store brought back into use as housing, a former bank transformed into a community hub or an empty shop becoming a thriving new local business—but too many tell a different story. There are buildings with boarded-up windows, leaking roofs and even trees growing out of them, in a famous case in Stafford town centre. There are buildings left to deteriorate year after year while local people look on in frustration. They are right to be frustrated, because those buildings are not simply an eyesore; they drag down neighbouring businesses and homes, discourage investment, create safety concerns and undermine confidence in the future of our high streets and town centres. In too many cases, those buildings are not victims of circumstance, but of neglect—neglect by owners who have allowed their properties to fall into serious disrepair while communities bear the consequences.
In my own constituency, the former jobcentre in Greyfriars has become a notorious example of what happens when responsibility is abandoned. Left to rot by its owners, it has been vandalised, it has become overgrown, and it is now a magnet for antisocial behaviour. It is also a danger, with fires that have put other local buildings at risk. However, this Bill was originally inspired by a much-loved country pub in the village of Sutton in my constituency. It was bought six years ago by someone who wished to develop the site, but planning permission was refused. In the six years it has lain empty, it has deteriorated beyond recognition. It has been stripped of its period features by criminals, and not only is it now a blight on the village, but it is dangerous, attracting antisocial behaviour.
My hon. Friend the Member for Darlington (Lola McEvoy) has shared with me the ongoing saga of Northgate House in her constituency—despite years of effort, that eyesore still dominates the Darlington landscape. In the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare (Dan Aldridge), one rogue landlord is blighting entire town centre streets such as Boulevard and Waterloo Street. He is refusing to bring his properties back into use and is allowing them to rot, bringing the local area down with them. People cannot understand why communities are expected to live with the consequences of landlord neglect while local authorities are left carrying the burden of putting things right.
Councils do have the power to act—where necessary, they can use compulsory purchase orders to acquire neglected properties and bring them back into productive use. Those powers are an important tool, but there is a problem. Under the current system, when a council has exhausted all other avenues and is forced to pursue a compulsory purchase order, it is generally expected not only to pay the owner for the property, but to cover that owner’s legal and professional fees. In other words, a council can find itself paying the bills of the very person whose neglect has created the problem in the first place. That is not fairness, it is not accountability, and it is certainly not conducive to the regeneration of our towns.
The principle behind my Bill is simple: there should be no reward for neglect. That is why I launched my “no reward for neglect” campaign; it is why people up and down the country have signed petitions, written to me and shared examples of neglected buildings at the heart of their communities; and it is why I am bringing this Bill before the House today. The Bill would remove the automatic entitlement to recover legal and professional fees where an owner has deliberately allowed a building to fall into disrepair and that neglect has contributed to the need for compulsory purchase.
To be clear, this is not a blanket removal of rights, nor is it aimed at the vast majority of property owners and landowners who work hard, meet their obligations and contribute positively to their communities. It is directed at a specific problem: those who allow properties to deteriorate year after year, ignore opportunities to improve or sell them, and then profit from their inaction while the public purse bears the cost. In those circumstances, the public purse should not fund those owners’ legal and professional costs as well. Indeed, a similar principle already exists in our heritage system. For listed buildings, we recognise that owners should not benefit from creating the circumstances that require public intervention. This Bill applies the same common-sense principle to compulsory purchase.
If we are serious about revitalising our towns and high streets and delivering growth in every postcode that people can feel and see, we have to be honest about the barriers that councils face. Many local authorities are reluctant to pursue compulsory purchase, even when the public interest is clear. Partly that is because of complexity, and partly it is because of capacity—our councils have been starved of resources—but very often, it is because of cost and risk. Council leaders know that every pound they spend on enforcement is a pound that is not being spent on frontline services. They know that legal costs can escalate and that they are likely to end up paying not just their own advisers, but those acting for the neglectful owner. That creates hesitation, and hesitation allows the decline to continue.
If we want councils to use the powers that Parliament has given them, those powers need to be practical, not just theoretical. This reform would remove one important barrier, and at a crucial moment. The Government have rightly renewed their focus on high streets, regeneration and tackling dereliction, but successful regeneration is about more than just bricks and mortar. What matters is not simply taking neglected buildings out of the hands of absentee landlords, but what we choose to do with them next. Organisations such as Power to Change have highlighted the enormous potential of vacant high street space, and we know that the high street of the future will include homes, public services, cultural spaces, workspaces and community hubs alongside traditional businesses.
Councils hold powers that community organisations, local charities and residents just do not have. Where appropriate, councils should use them to unlock opportunities for community businesses, social enterprises and local organisations with the commitment and knowledge to keep those buildings productive for the long term. Indeed, I would love to see compulsory purchase used more often as a route into community ownership, because when local people have a stake in a building’s future, they have a stake in its success, and the rewards of regeneration are felt by the people who live there, rather than extracted elsewhere.
This Bill will not solve every challenge facing our high streets. It will not bring every neglected building back into use overnight, but it does address a clear unfairness and strengthen accountability. It sends a message about where responsibility should lie. Those who own buildings have responsibilities as well as rights. Communities should not have to live with the consequences of landlord neglect, and councils should certainly not have to pay for it. The people of Stafford know exactly what that looks like when they walk past our former jobcentre. Communities across Britain know exactly what it looks like, too. This Bill is ultimately about fairness, accountability and a simple principle: those who neglect buildings should not be rewarded, while those committed to the future of their communities should be empowered. There should be no reward for neglect. I commend this Bill to the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Ordered,
That Leigh Ingham, Dan Aldridge, Chris Bloore, Dr Beccy Cooper, Maya Ellis, Tom Hayes, Adam Jogee, Lola McEvoy, Melanie Onn, Sarah Smith, Gareth Snell and Alan Strickland present the Bill.
Leigh Ingham accordingly presented the Bill.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 5 February 2027, and to be printed (Bill 179).
Point of Order
(1 day, 6 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate
Sir Roger Gale (Herne Bay and Sandwich) (Con)
On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I wish to utilise a rare device, which is a point of order that I believe is genuinely a matter for the Chair. Some weeks ago, the Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero issued a determination on a development consent order based upon what I believe to be false figures supplied by the National Grid to the Planning Inspectorate. I raised that as a named day question, to be answered on the fourth of this month. That answer was finally provided on Monday of this week, many days late. There usually is a very good reason that Members table named day questions, as in this case, and it is that they want an answer on that named day. Mr Speaker, can you use your good offices to ensure that when Members table named day questions, they receive the courtesy of a proper and timely response?
Mr Speaker
I know how important this matter is to the right hon. Member, his constituents and other constituencies around his, so I am very disappointed. I hope the Treasury Bench have heard the comments, and I will be taking this up with the Leader of the House. It is not acceptable. MPs are elected to serve their constituents. When they put in or ask a question, it should be answered in good time. With a named day question, it should be answered, as in its title, by that named day.
Mr Speaker
We are not going to continue the argument. That is not the best thing to do at this stage.
Sir Alec Shelbrooke (Wetherby and Easingwold) (Con)
Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker—
Mr Speaker
No, I don’t think so. Take the first hint; don’t require a second.
Opposition Day
(1 day, 6 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Welfare
(1 day, 6 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
15:45 - The House divided: - Ayes: 92 / Noes: 279 - Question accordingly negatived.
15:59 - The House divided: - Ayes: 268 / Noes: 93 - Question accordingly agreed to.
Mr Speaker
I inform the House that I have selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister. I call the shadow Secretary of State.
Helen Whately (Faversham and Mid Kent) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House calls on the Government to commit to bringing working-age welfare spending down in this Parliament.
The day after the Budget, we heard the Chancellor on the radio telling the country some good news: the welfare bill would come down in this Parliament. But hold your horses, Treasury spinners hit the phones just minutes later to say that they could not commit to that. Even No. 10 intervened to say that it has never set an arbitrary target or timetable. By 5 pm, the Chancellor had done a remarkably rapid reverse ferret. He popped up on Channel 4 to tell us that the Government will not bring down welfare this Parliament after all. What a mess. It was, “Oh yes, we will,” then, “Oh no, we won’t.” It is a bit early for pantomime season. Seriously, what is going on over on the Government Benches?
The bill for working-age welfare is £183 billion a year, and it is set to rise to more than £200 billion. Taxes are up, borrowing is up, the cost of borrowing is up, and the Government cannot tell us how they will fund 3% of GDP on defence, on today of all days. They said that they would not put up taxes on working people, but paying for all that welfare will cost working households £50,000 in taxes over this Parliament. The country cannot afford this Labour Government, but it is what we have come to expect from them—no plan, no conviction and no backbone, just ducking tough choices and leaving working families to pay the price.
Mark Pritchard (The Wrekin) (Con)
My hon. Friend mentions that the Government have no plan, and that includes not having a plan to fund defence. Does she agree that there is no social security without national security, and that threats to the UK are real, present, multiple and serious? Putting off increasing defence spending until later on in the autumn or perhaps even later is a dereliction of duty. The first duty of any Government is to protect our constituents and this nation, and putting off defence spending increases is putting our nation at risk.
Helen Whately
My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. The first duty of Government is national security. We will not even have social security if we do not have national security. We have to find a way to fund defence. There is no time to waste. As I will set out in my speech, there are plenty of opportunities to make substantial welfare savings, to cut taxes, to bring down the deficit and to fund defence.
To be fair, some Government Members understand the situation that the country is in. Some of them know that their constituents understand it, too. That is why they sometimes go through the motions, as with their amendment today, albeit they hid it at the very end, with some wording that they want to “bring down the benefits bill”. I wonder whether Labour Whips were hoping that their leftie Back Benchers would not read that far. Though Labour talks about bringing down the bill, there is no date. It is the same thing when the Prime Minister says that he wants to bring welfare spending down
“as soon as we possibly can.”
It is nonsense. Without a date or plan, it is just empty words. No one trusts this Government on welfare. Apparently there will not even be any savings in the Prime Minister’s 10-year plan.
Josh Fenton-Glynn (Calder Valley) (Lab)
The hon. Member says that we do not have a plan to bring down welfare spending. We are putting £3.5 billion into getting young people back into work. Can the hon. Member tell me how the Opposition arrived at their £36 billion figure—the Institute for Fiscal Studies does not know—and, indeed, how much they will put into getting young people back into work?
Helen Whately
I will set out how we will achieve our £36 billion in savings, if the hon. Gentleman will just sit back and listen. All we have heard from him and his party are plans to spend more money, and he simply reiterated that just now. We do not bring the benefits bill down by spending more money.
This is not just about the welfare bill. Let us talk about what is happening to our country. A total of 6.7 million people of working age are not working and are on out-of-work benefits, and 700,000 of them are under the age of 25. This is a disaster. All those young people are sitting at home whiling away the day instead of going out to work and getting on with their lives. One in four adults now identify as disabled. Claims for personal independence payment have doubled since 2019, but the country is not twice as sick. Hundreds of thousands of households claimed more than £32,000 in benefits last year, and some of them claimed more than £60,000. That is almost twice the average take-home pay of a British worker. People who are working are asking, “Why do I bother?” We cannot expect taxpayers to keep funding a welfare system that is clearly so broken and so unfair.
Mark Pritchard
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for her generosity in giving way. I am sure she would like to see the details at some point, but is she aware that some people are actually getting mortgages to buy houses on the basis of the benefits they receive, and that those on benefits who can save a little are actually using benefits to save for a deposit? I am in favour of cutting benefits as long as we protect the most vulnerable, but it is fundamentally unfair that people in my constituency who are working in factories, on farms and in offices and are struggling to save for their first property or pay their mortgage should be outdone by those who are being paid by the taxpayer to sit at home. They can have benefits, but they should not take advantage.
Helen Whately
That is an important point. Most people want to see a welfare system that supports those who really need help. They want to see a welfare system that is a safety net, not a lifestyle choice.
Daniel Francis (Bexleyheath and Crayford) (Lab)
Following the scenario that we have just heard, my understanding is that the Conservatives believe that someone can pay their mortgage for 20 years, be retired on grounds of ill health or disability and then not pay the remainder of the mortgage, because it should not be possible for those who do not work to conclude their mortgages. Is that the position of the Conservative party?
Helen Whately
It sounds to me as if the hon. Member has wilfully misunderstood and misrepresented what my right hon. Friend the Member for The Wrekin (Mark Pritchard) said a moment ago.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
Order. Can we please be a little bit careful about the use of words such as “misrepresented”?
Helen Whately
My apologies, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am sure that that was not the intention of the hon. Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford (Daniel Francis).
Reforming welfare is not cruel to people on benefits—quite the opposite. What is cruel is failing to reform welfare, parking young people on benefits while taxing and regulating jobs out of existence, and telling people that a handout is the answer to their problems rather than going out to work. Truly what is cruel is what the Government are doing to hard-working families: squeezing them with tax rises, higher inflation and higher bills so that there is less to go round at the end of the month, all to fund the lifestyle of “Benefits Street”.
The Minister for Social Security and Disability (Sir Stephen Timms)
I agree with the shadow Secretary of State that failing to reform welfare is a very serious failure indeed. Her party was in government for 14 years. Will she tell us in which years spending on welfare fell?
Helen Whately
The right hon. Gentleman’s intervention is extremely timely, as that is literally the next bit of my speech. I thank him for taking me on.
The Government like to say that all this happened on our watch. Let me remind them what actually happened. Last time Labour left power—no surprises—we inherited high unemployment, a rising welfare bill and more than a million young people not in education, employment or training. During the 2010s we brought down unemployment, brought down the number of NEETs and brought down the welfare bill. In the 2020s, as we all know, covid and lockdowns accelerated the rise in claims for mild mental health conditions and neurodiversity, and the number of NEETs did go up, although it did not reach the level it is at today under Labour. When this Government showed up, they had no plan, and in fact they have only made things worse.
Helen Whately
I will not give way again. They will have their opportunity to speak in due course.
Let me remind the House of the things that the Labour Government have done—of which, no doubt, they are proud—to make benefits easier to claim and more generous. As soon as they entered office they cancelled our sicknote reforms, our PIP reforms, and our plans to update the work capability assessment to reflect the option to work from home. Then, one year in, they cobbled together some poorly thought through changes to save just £5 billion from the benefits bill. Even that was too much for Labour Back Benchers. In a moment of utter shambles—we have never seen anything like it—on the Floor of the House, in the middle of a debate, amid a flurry of concessions, they ripped up their own legislation. In true Labour fashion, the Bill ended up costing money instead of saving any.
One of those concessions was the Timms review of personal independence payment. I have a great deal of respect for the Disability Minister, but what hope is there for his review, given that it started out as a bargaining chip to buy off angry Back Benchers? No wonder it has ruled out making any savings. In fact, its recommendations so far will actually increase the benefits bill. It says that PIP is not generous enough and too hard to claim, although we know that one in six people on PIP admit that they face no extra cost for their condition, and “sickfluencers” sell scripts and model answers so that people can game the system.
Desperate to make his MPs like him again after his savings fiasco, Keir Starmer scrapped the two-child benefit cap despite promising that he would keep it. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear!”] Labour Members are cheering again. I remember that they cheered at the time, but they got rid of him anyway. Let me remind them that nearly half a million households received an extra £5,000 in benefits, and about 75,000 received between £10,000 and £21,000 more. That is more than the income of someone working full time, just in extra money. People can see that this is a benefits bonanza.
Natasha Irons (Croydon East) (Lab)
More than half the households to have benefited from the lifting of the two-child limit have somebody who is in work. I wonder what the hon. Lady would say to those people, given that she is talking as if they do not work or contribute. The lifting of the limit will have helped their household, kept them in work and helped their children to not be in poverty.
Helen Whately
What would the hon. Lady say to people who are not on benefits, who ask, “Can we afford to have another child?”, and decide that they cannot? The fact is that someone who is in work and decides to have another child will not be given a pay rise.
None of what I am saying should come as a surprise, given that 204 Labour Members have more PIP claimants in their constituencies than the size of their majorities. No wonder the Welfare Secretary has said that all his MPs ask him is, who can they tax more in order to pay more benefits? Most Labour Members see no problem with the size of the welfare bill. The Disability Minister himself said that
“the current level of spending is not a great concern”,
but some of them know that the anger is building out there. People who work are getting tired of being taxed to the hilt to pay for people who do not. Some Labour MPs will desperately want to reassure their constituents. They will be hoping that the Timms and Milburn reviews will give them some succour, but they will not face the facts, and neither will they bring down the benefits bill. Labour spin doctors may try to say otherwise, but nobody is buying it.
The Conservatives are the only ones with a plan that backs welfare savings—no ifs, no buts. Our reforms will save £36 billion.
Helen Whately
The hon. Member asks “How?” from a sedentary position. I have our plan with me here and, if he will just listen, I will set it out.
As I said, our reforms will save £36 billion. When the Prime Minister was asked about them, he said that they were just a number. He could not be more wrong. Savings are important, but reforming the welfare system is a good thing to do in its own right. We have not just plucked a big round number out of thin air; it takes hard graft to work out who should get support and what help they should get. It also involves saying who will not get benefits any more, which is not something that welfare party Members will ever have the courage to do.
Chris Vince (Harlow) (Lab/Co-op)
The hon. Lady knows that I always try to find cross-party consensus where possible. [Interruption.] I know—sometimes it is difficult, right? She referred to the Timms review. I am very pleased that my right hon. Friend the Minister is leading that review, because he is absolutely the right man for the job. Does she recognise that one of the things that the Timms review is looking at is the importance of bringing back in-person assessments for PIP? Those were scrapped by the previous Government. I am sure that she will come up with reasons for why that happened, but does she not recognise that it is good to bring them back? In-person assessments mean that we can get PIP to the people who need it, and fraudulent claims will go down. I did not mention Harlow—sorry!
Helen Whately
The hon. Member—for Harlow—has indeed found an opportunity for consensus across the House. We do want to see face-to-face assessments brought back. In fact, we want to see the Government get on with it—the sooner, the better.
If the Government are asking people to fund our welfare system, that system needs to do what the public want it to do. Our plan is grounded in five clear and widely held principles: fairness; contribution; responsibility; welfare as a safety net, not a lifestyle choice; and living within our means. Unlike the Timms review, we will not shy away from reforming sickness and disability benefits. We should not be telling millions of people that they need handouts from the state for milder conditions, neurodiversity and anxiety. The state is telling people that what matters is what they cannot do or what they find difficult, not what they can do. We will stop giving PIP for mild mental health conditions and routine back and joint pain, and shift from cash handouts to support, backed by an extra £1 billion of funding. This will save £13.7 billion a year.
The same tragedy is unfolding in children’s benefits. The number of child disability living allowance claims for behavioural conditions, learning difficulties and ADHD has doubled since 2020, as Policy Exchange’s recent excellent paper has highlighted. Even the Government’s own adviser, Professor Fonagy, has said that the actual prevalence is not going up at the same rate, yet half a million more children will be signed on under this Government. That is half a million children being told that they have something wrong with them, that they cannot succeed and that they need handouts, which can be up to £20,000 a year. I have heard stories of children saying that they do not want these labels foisted on them, but they are not being given a choice. Child disability living allowance is a conveyor belt on to PIP and then a clear path to becoming another of the 1 million NEETs, so we will reform DLA. Yes, cash should go to the families of seriously disabled children, and we will provide £1 billion of extra support for those with milder conditions. After that, we will save £2.8 billion from these reforms.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
It is not often that I disagree with the hon. Lady, but I have to put this on the record. In my constituency, a large number of children are assessed by specialists, be it privately or through the NHS, and the number is rising greatly. They are assessed by professionals, who agree that they have ADHD, dyslexia or another challenging disability. The figures in my constituency tell me that things are getting worse, and the medical evidence proves it. Does the hon. Lady not agree?
Helen Whately
I did refer to the Government’s own review and the work of Professor Fonagy, because that review says that the prevalence is not rising at the same rate as the claims. Clearly, something must be done to make sure that assessments are being done properly. That is very serious and it requires further work.
Dr Kieran Mullan (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)
The broader question is not so much whether the rates are going up, but whether having any of these diagnoses should preclude people from working.
Helen Whately
I am responding to an intervention, if the hon. Lady will give me a moment.
There is a really important point to be made. Following this debate, I will no doubt receive a lot of criticism about some of the things I say from people who are neurodiverse. However, many people who have an ADHD diagnosis who are in work will respond by talking about the strengths that they believe their ADHD gives them. In fact, if he does not mind my mentioning it, my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight East (Joe Robertson), who is sitting beside me, has recently received an ADHD diagnosis and has had the courage to talk about what that means for him. We should talk about what people can do, not what they cannot.
Helen Whately
I will make a little progress.
Britain cannot be a cash machine for the world. Migrants come here believing that we will give them money, free healthcare and a house. This has to change. We will stop giving benefits and social housing to foreign nationals with indefinite or limited leave to remain, because being British has to count for something. That will save £9.5 billion and free up 230,000 social homes for British families who are stuck waiting. Labour Members should think about how much that will help British families facing homelessness.
We will save £1 billion by fixing loopholes in the household benefit cap and stopping households on benefits claiming endless cash, and a further £1 billion by rooting out fraud and error. Working families do not get a pay rise when they have another child, and families on welfare should not do so either, so we will bring back the two-child cap and save £3 billion. We will save an extra £4.5 billion by reforming housing benefit, which will include reforms that both Onward and the IFS have argued for. There will be no more asking taxpayers to pay for people on benefits to live in places where working people cannot afford to live, and we will save another half a billion pounds by tackling long-term unemployment. People who could be working but choose not to do so will have their benefits cut by a third after six months and be put on to a card, instead of receiving cash. Some people call this a nanny state measure, but it is not. It is not their money; it is taxpayers’ money.
Labour Members could show today that they understand the anger out there. They could show that they have found their moral compass—or are they going to keep on backing “Benefits Street”? We know where we stand. The Conservatives are on the side of people who get up, go to work and pay their taxes. They are the ones who fund our welfare system to support the seriously sick and disabled, and people who fall on hard times. Most people think our approach is the right thing to do. What they will not accept is being taken for a ride. We do not take their hard graft for granted, and it is time for Labour Members to decide where they stand.
The Minister for Social Security and Disability (Sir Stephen Timms)
I beg to move an amendment, to leave out from “House” to the end of the Question and add:
“notes that the previous Government left over one million young people not in education, employment or training, while overseeing a £33 billion rise in the welfare bill in its final year alone; recognises that since the General Election one million more people are in work and 397,000 more people are economically active; welcomes the imminent publication of the Milburn and Timms reviews; and supports the Government’s commitment to deliver welfare reforms that break down barriers to employment, support more people into good, secure work and bring down the benefits bill.”
The welfare system that the hon. Member for Faversham and Mid Kent (Helen Whately) has just been criticising is the one that her party designed and built, and then failed to reform when the Conservatives were in office. They failed abjectly on its financial cost and on its human cost. Over 14 years, they utterly failed to reform the system. She said at one stage that they had cut the welfare bill. I asked her in how many of those 14 years the bill fell, and she did not answer the question—not surprisingly—because the answer is none: it never fell in that 14-year period.
On the Conservatives’ watch, 2.8 million people were out of work due to long-term sickness. Progress on the disability employment gap stalled. It fell steadily under the last Labour Government, but it barely shifted during their 14 years in office. The number of young people not in education, employment or training went up by a quarter of a million just in their last few years in power. The number of children in poverty went up by hundreds of thousands, setting back their life chances and making them much more likely to be not in education, employment or training as young adults. Welfare spending rose by £33 billion in their final year in government alone.
Sir Stephen Timms
The hon. Member for Faversham and Mid Kent claimed that spending had been reduced; it never was. That never happened, and it would not happen under the proposals she talked about, as I will come to in a moment.
These latest ill thought through proposals show that the Conservatives have learned nothing from their time in government. They are making exactly the same mistakes all over again in opposition: crude cuts to put more people into poverty; more people pushed on to disability benefits; 1 million young people not in education, employment or training; and an explosion in the welfare bill. Those are crude cuts, with no thought for the human costs, which means that savings will never materialise. How much would their proposals increase child poverty? How much would they increase homelessness? How much would they add to their costs of failure?
Priti Patel (Witham) (Con)
I have a great deal of time for the Minister, and we have worked together on many welfare and other issues in the past, but does he not recognise that in the five-year period between 2010 and 2015, the number of workless households fell by 600,000? Can he please explain to the House, including his hon. Friends, why his party when in opposition—after the financial crisis and the former Labour Government had let unemployment go up—voted against every single welfare reform measure put forward by that Conservative Government?
Sir Stephen Timms
Let me tell the right hon. Lady about one of the welfare reform measures in that period. As she will well remember, disability living allowance was replaced by the personal independence payment in 2013. We were told by the Conservatives that that would save £2 billion a year. That saving never, ever materialised: it was never delivered. In 2017, they said they would save hundreds of millions a year by scrapping the higher benefit, on top of the universal credit standard allowance, payable to people in the intermediate category with limited capability to work. What happened was that large numbers moved instead on to the highest rate—up to the limited capability for work-related activity category. In that case, it was not simply that the saving did not materialise, which it certainly did not, but that they ended up spending a lot more. Even worse, once people had LCWRA status, the system no longer offered them help to find work. Those people were completely abandoned, which was a big part of the reason why this Government inherited 2.8 million people who were economically inactive on health grounds.
Mark Pritchard
The Minister has been in this place a very long time, and the whole House knows his experience on pensions and welfare reform. Can I just encourage him not to overextend his response today ahead of the Milburn report? There may be some contradictions between what he says today and what Lord Milburn says in his report about the importance of getting people into work and how that is compassionate. The most compassionate thing is getting people off benefits and into work, not topping up their benefits endlessly. He may find that the Milburn report takes a different view from some of the—forgive me—ideological points he has been making.
Sir Stephen Timms
I have not been ideological at all; I am just telling the House what the previous Government did. Like the right hon. Gentleman, I am looking forward to the publication of the Milburn report, which, as the Prime Minister has just told us, will take place next week.
Daniel Francis
I have been a member of the Labour party for 32 years, and I believe that being a member of the Labour party means supporting people in work. However, I have heard Conservative Members and the shadow Secretary of State repeat the claim today that everything was the fault of covid. Yet the statistics, both the absolute numbers and in percentage terms, from my borough—the London borough of Bexley—rose more from spring 2022 to spring 2024 than they did from spring 2020 to spring 2022, so the fault was not covid. The fault was that the Conservatives lost control of the system. Why, therefore, do they have any credibility in arguing this case?
Sir Stephen Timms
My hon. Friend is absolutely right, and the increase in the number of NEETs at the end of the Conservatives’ term in office was particularly staggering.
Just setting out a list that adds up to a big number does not solve the problem. The Conservatives should have realised that by now. Theirs was a catastrophic record—waste, lost potential, moral failure—and we are not going to leave that unchanged. Too often, their system was writing people off instead of giving people the help and support they need. We are absolutely determined to fix the system we inherited, in the interests both of those who depend on benefits and of taxpayers who pay for them.
We have already narrowed the gap between what people get on the health element and the standard allowance in universal credit. That feature of the system, which the Conservatives left behind, was forcing people to aspire to be classed as too sick to work. The social security system simply should not force people to do that. The system should be encouraging people to look for work and providing the support to make work feasible. That is what we are reforming the system to do.
We are restoring face-to-face assessments for health benefits, and I am glad the shadow Secretary of State supports that. The number collapsed under the Tories, as they were never reinstated after the pandemic. We have also started to change the equation under which the last Government spent £25 on benefits for every £1 spent on opportunity, because the best way to bring benefits spending down is to put opportunity at the heart of the system and get people into work.
Jim Shannon
I thank the Minister for setting out a very distinct way forward. None of us in this House on either side of this Chamber is against sensible savings in benefits, which are welcome, but that can never, ever be at the cost of the genuinely disabled or the terminally ill. I always try to be helpful to the Minister in these debates. Gordon Lyons, the Minister for Communities in the Northern Ireland Assembly, has taken a zero-tolerance approach to benefit fraud. By ramping up investigations, and tackling and catching benefit fraudsters, he has saved £60 million in the last year. Does the Minister agree that tackling fraud and getting those who can work into jobs has to be the way forward?
Sir Stephen Timms
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right about the importance of tackling fraud—my hon. Friend the Minister for Employment took the Public Authorities (Fraud, Error and Recovery Bill) through this House—and about ensuring there is always support for those who have no alternative but to depend on the social security system, and we will always do so.
Since the general election, 1 million more people are in work and the rate of increase in welfare spending as a share of GDP over the new Office for Budget Responsibility forecast is expected to be half what it was in the previous Parliament. That is very positive progress, but there is a great deal more to do, and turning that inactivity-opportunity equation around is key for young people, because the longer they are left on benefits or out of work at the start of what should be their working lives, the harder it is to come off those benefits, and the worse and longer lasting are the consequences. That is why we are making a £2.5 billion additional investment in the youth guarantee to get more young people earning or learning.
Sir Alec Shelbrooke (Wetherby and Easingwold) (Con)
The Minister is outlining the progress he wants to make in getting people back into work, and I know he has put a lot of hard work into that, but the reality, as we know from talking to businesses, is that they do not want to employ younger people now, because of the decisions taken by the previous Chancellor of the Exchequer: lowering the threshold for national insurance and increasing employer national insurance; increasing the minimum wage at a higher rate than for older people; and passing the Employment Rights Act 2025. Businesses perceive it to be too great a risk to be worth hiring somebody who does not have the experience others may have. I say openly to the Minister that those issues must be addressed if he is to open up the market and get young people back into work.
Sir Stephen Timms
We are taking initiatives to do exactly that. Contrary to what the right hon. Gentleman has said, I would say that employers want very much to give opportunities to young people, because they know that their future depends on that.
Alison Griffiths (Bognor Regis and Littlehampton) (Con)
Will the Minister give way?
Sir Stephen Timms
I will make a little more headway and then will gladly give way to the hon. Lady.
We are increasing, for example, the number of youth apprenticeships to reverse the 40% decline in starts in a decade that kicked away a vital first step in the career ladder for many. I can remember, as I think will others, Tory Ministers year after year announcing apprenticeship targets that never got anywhere near being achieved. On more work experience places, the right hon. Gentleman may have heard the recent announcement from the British Retail Consortium. Employers want to give young people a chance to break the “no experience, no job” cycle. There is a £3,000 hiring incentive to help employers who take a chance on young people, on top of the existing employer national insurance contributions relief.
I will give way to the hon. Lady and then I will need to make some headway.
Alison Griffiths
I thank the Minister for giving way. He will know that employers across all our constituencies, and particularly those in hospitality, who are typically among the most prolific employers of youngsters, are telling all of us on both sides of the House that the Government’s jobs tax, the Employment Rights Act 2025 and the increase in the national minimum wage for youngsters is pricing them out of the market. Will he reconsider?
Sir Stephen Timms
I have told the hon. Lady about the announcement that the British Retail Consortium has made. Hospitality employers also want young people to have opportunities in their businesses, and I think we will be hearing more about that before too long.
We have youth hubs being set up in every community to offer wraparound health, housing and employment support. I visited mine in Newham last week, hosted by West Ham United Community Foundation at the Foundry in Beckton. It was full of activity and optimism for the young people who were there. For long-term unemployed young people, there is a guaranteed job fully subsidised by the Government for six months, which from next April we will fast-track for young disabled people after just three months.
Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)
I am very grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving way. Can I just say to him very politely—he knows the House respects the work he has done on this issue and his understanding of the broad picture—that none of those interventions would be required were it not as a direct result of Treasury policy? Change Treasury policy and employers will employ people of all abilities and all ages across the country. He is destroying job creation and then expecting plaudits for providing additional taxpayer money to subsidise people to create jobs that his Government are destroying.
Sir Stephen Timms
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his politeness, but the NEETs figure rocketed in the last three years of the Tory Government and that was not caused by a national insurance change. We are increasing the employment rate, making progress and tackling the terrible problems left behind by the previous Government. I will give way one final time and then I really must make progress.
Chris Vince
I thank the Minister for giving way, and I will make sure I mention Harlow in this intervention. One of the things that I think the previous Government got wrong—I say this as a former teacher—is that they narrowed the curriculum. That meant young people who would have benefited from more vocational, practical courses were missing out on the opportunity to train. That is something Harlow College has done very well. I invite the Minister to see the courses it provides to get the long-term unemployed into training and employment. Will he confirm that he is working with the Department for Education to ensure that we have a broader curriculum to cater for everybody’s needs?
Sir Stephen Timms
Yes, I will. My hon. Friend will know that we have a joint Minister between the Department for Education and the Department for Work and Pensions to help us to make progress in exactly the way he describes.
It was disappointing to hear the shadow Secretary of State and other Opposition Members dismiss the support that we are providing. She would hear quite different views if she spoke to the young people hired under our jobs guarantee. Getting their first experience of a real paid job is a life-changing boost for a young person. It means an enormous amount to them and it is the crucial first break that they need, which we are determined they should have. They were not getting that under the previous Government. The truth is that people do want to work. Conservatives sometimes talk about strivers versus shirkers, and people making a mockery of the system—there was something of that in the hon. Lady’s remarks earlier. Deriding the efforts of people who may well be up against tough odds but who want to make a go of things is not the right way forward. This Government will stand alongside those people.
Sir Stephen Timms
No, I am going to make some progress.
Anyone can find themselves in need of support at different times in their life. It will not be divisive rhetoric or public shaming that helps them to get on to the right track to make their contribution; it will be giving them a chance. That is what we are determined to do.
We have made a very important start not just with the changes to universal credit, the Right to Try scheme and the youth guarantee, but with more investment in employment support for long-term unemployed disabled people through Pathways to Work. We have 1,000 Pathways to Work advisers reaching out to people who the Tories just gave up on. They wrote them off as too sick to work and did nothing at all to help them. We know that many of those people want to work and they know they can if they have the right support. That is what we are providing for them.
We are encouraged by the early results coming out of our Connect to Work programme, providing tailored support for disabled people and others faced with complex barriers to work. The commissioning of that programme has been devolved to local government across England and Wales, because we know that councils are best placed to know in their local area who can provide the support that is needed, bringing together employment support, education, colleges, skills providers and the NHS to deliver the help that people need. We are publishing the results for each area every quarter, so that everybody can see how things are going and extra help can be provided in places where it is needed.
Sir Charlie Mayfield’s “Keep Britain Working” review has been looking at what more employers can do to make workplaces more welcoming to jobseekers with health impairments, and more accommodating to people who experience a health problem in the course of their employment. There is a great deal of employer enthusiasm for this, because employers recognise the benefits they can get from retaining their employees, with their skills and experience, and ensuring that they are supported to thrive in work.
Alison Griffiths
I thank the Minister for being so generous with his time. I would like to share the feedback I received from a business group in my constituency just before the Budget. What they tell me is that they would love to be enthusiastic about hiring and bringing on more young people, but they are feeling absolutely shackled by the taxes and regulations that are being imposed on them, layer upon layer.
Sir Stephen Timms
The British Retail Consortium recently announced a programme of 100,000 work experience opportunities and jobs for young people. There is a lot of employer enthusiasm here. Sir Charlie Mayfield, who I was talking about, started working up his ideas with 60 vanguard employers, after publishing his report a year ago. The vanguard group is now up to 230. With regional leadership across the UK, Keep Britain Working is working with another 400 employers, mostly small and medium-sized enterprises, to test and develop better approaches to managing health and disability in the workplace. We are looking at the reform of Disability Confident and we are recruiting an extra 480 staff to turn around Access to Work applications more quickly.
Sir Stephen Timms
No, I am not giving way again.
Like the right hon. Member for The Wrekin (Mark Pritchard), I am looking forward to Alan Milburn’s report. His interim report on young people and work was a powerful rallying cry for change and a powerful indictment of the system left behind by the previous Tory Government. The steering group working on PIP, which I co-chair, will also be coming forward with our recommendations later this month. The final reports of both reviews will be published in the next couple of months. The Government will then consider the recommendations and bring forward a White Paper in the new year.
The social security system should always provide security for those who cannot work, but for those who can work the system needs to be a bridge to provide a way into greater participation. That means going beyond the approach we inherited that provides an assessment, writes a cheque and after that says goodbye, with no offer of skills or training and no opportunity to get a job. We do not just owe young people an income; we owe them a future. Young people were starting to doubt whether they had a future. We need to show them that a way is being opened up, as it is. It means ending the Tories’ “signed off, written off” culture, changing the question the system asks from, “What benefit are you entitled to?” to “How do we help you to live the fullest life, to fulfil your aspirations?”
Helen Whately
I object to the way the Minister is describing our approach to welfare, which I do not agree with. I have talked about how the Conservatives brought down the working-age welfare bill during our time in government. The Minister appears to disagree with that statement. Can he tell me whether he is disagreeing because he includes rises in the state pension during that time—so he is considering the full bill including the state pension—or is it because he is looking at figures in nominal terms?
Sir Stephen Timms
The hon. Lady has perhaps taken some advice and is conceding that the bill never fell under their 14 years in government.
We need to learn the lessons from the success of what has happened in other countries, such as Denmark, which the Secretary of State visited last week to see how a focus on asking what people can do, not just what they cannot do, has given it one of the highest disability employment rates in Europe.
The Tory party signed people off, wrote them off and then blamed them. Our approach is very different: we want to invest in people’s success and give them the chance of education, training, a decent job and a full life—not a life constrained by the limitations of benefit income. That is the way to bring hope for the future and bring the benefits bill down. In the next few weeks, the House will see the two major reports that we are bringing forward. The Government’s response to them will set out the details of how we will set about that task, and I am looking forward immensely to the debates ahead.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
Steve Darling (Torbay) (LD)
I am sure that all of us in this House agree that we need to manage the benefits system, but that we need to manage it appropriately. The Liberal Democrats fear that the official Opposition are playing the man rather than the ball. It is systems that are broken and need amending, and that is where the focus should be, rather than on demonising individuals.
As a Liberal Democrat, I am extremely proud that the architect of our welfare state was Beveridge, who issued his report in 1942, which was then taken on by the Labour Government of 1945 and has built the bedrock of our society since. It is something that we need to ensure evolves appropriately, rather than the slashing and burning that we have seen.
From my two years on the Work and Pensions Committee, I reflect on how extending the pension age has significantly impacted a lot of manual workers, who are unable to continue in those roles for year upon year until their retirement age, and thus have to fall back on the benefits system. That is a pressure that has not been there historically. Closer to home, I am aware of the individuals who 50 years ago would have died very early as premature babies, but who now often live through to adulthood because of the marvels of health services around the world. There is therefore an added pressure on our benefits system.
I also reflect—I am sure that other Members will agree— that I will not take lectures from His Majesty’s Opposition, given that they saw a £33 billion increase in the benefits bill during their last year in power. Another element that I am alive to about those years of Conservative Government is the lack of investment in our national health service. Capital money was used on revenue spending, which has left a gaping hole that will be a challenge for years to come—that money could have been used ensuring that we were getting people back into work.
On the Conservative proposals before us today, it is not so much about seeing that there is a mask, but that the mask has been completely removed. The Child Poverty Action Group suggests that the proposals would see the biggest plunge of children into child poverty that we have ever had as a nation. It is often suggested that it is all about people who work and people who do not, but one third of people who are on universal credit are in work.
A few weeks ago, I met in the Lobby a lady who had come up from Torbay hospital, where she worked. She puts a fair amount of time into the hospital, supporting some of the most vulnerable in our society, yet she is still in receipt of universal credit. That is a significant challenge that we need to be alive to: one third of people on universal credit are in work. Similarly, there is the suggestion that people on personal independence payments are out of work, but an awful lot of people use PIP to get themselves into work.
There is a significant pressure relating to local housing allowance. In London, only 2.3% of rents are affordable using that measure. In my constituency, the average rent for a studio flat is £577, yet the amount paid by local housing allowance is £503. There is a massive gap between rents and what the state supports people with; they will have to subsidise their rent with other benefits that they may receive.
The Liberal Democrats strongly believe that the best way to get people out of the benefits system is to grow our economy. The botched Brexit deal has seen a 32% reduction in job vacancies in the United Kingdom, and that pressure continues to build. Sadly, it has been exacerbated by the Labour Government’s NIC hike, which has seen 100,000 jobs lost in the hospitality industry—jobs that are often a first step on the employment ladder.
We need to be alive to how to fix the system. Only last week, the Work and Pensions Committee heard that the system that supports people on carer’s allowance is older than the data officer at the Department for Work and Pensions. Significant systems need renewing in the DWP if it is to be fit for purpose. Cliff edges in the benefits system for NEETs need to be tackled, so that people are encouraged to go into work. Access to Work needs to be ungummed up; it too has an old system that has problems getting people into employment. The Minister spoke about Disability Confident employers, but the scheme feels to me like a tick-box exercise. We need to ensure that disabled people and employers work together, so that the scheme becomes a lot more meaningful as a driver of people into employment.
I will say it again: we need to play the ball and not the man. The Conservatives are behaving like the Argentinian football team at the last world cup; they played the man, rather than the ball. We need a fair deal for those most in need.
Michael Payne (Gedling) (Lab)
I welcome the opportunity to contribute to this debate, not least because it gives this House an opportunity to remind the Conservative party of a rather inconvenient truth. The welfare crisis facing our country did not begin on 4 July 2024; it was inherited on that day from a Conservative party that had 14 years to fix our welfare system, tackle economic inactivity, improve employment opportunities for disabled people and build a health service capable of getting people back into work. What did the Conservatives leave behind? They left millions of people economically inactive because of long-term sickness; a welfare system that too often wrote people off, rather than helping them back into employment; NHS waiting lists at record levels; and a generation of young people facing barriers to opportunity.
The welfare bill rose by £33 billion in the final year in which the Leader of the Opposition was in the Cabinet, and there was an increase of a quarter of a million young people not in education, employment or training in the final three years of the Conservative Government. That is not a record to boast about, but a record to apologise for, yet here we are, listening to Conservative Members—the very few who are present for this Opposition day debate—lecturing this Labour Government about the very problems that they created. They have apparently now discovered the answer to those problems: £36 billion of welfare cuts, and all during a cost of living crisis.
The ink is barely dry on the Conservatives’ proposals, and already the highly respected Institute for Fiscal Studies has raised serious questions about the credibility of their numbers—serious questions, by the way, that the shadow Secretary of State did nothing to address in her opening remarks. The Conservatives claim that they can save £14 billion by restricting health-related benefits for people with certain mental health conditions and with back and joint problems, but the Institute for Fiscal Studies points out that disability benefits are assessed according to the impact of a person’s condition, not simply the name of their diagnosis. The IFS also highlights that two thirds of personal independence payment recipients with a mental health diagnosis also have a physical health diagnosis.
I ask Conservative Members a very simple question: how exactly will they distinguish between somebody who is genuinely unable to work and somebody whose illness they have decided is not serious enough? Will it be a Conservative politician making that judgment, a Treasury spreadsheet, perhaps, or an arbitrary list of conditions drawn up to make their sums add up? Illness does not become less debilitating simply because a politician decides it is too expensive, nor does disability disappear because the Treasury wants to save money.
Then there is the Conservatives’ proposal to save £9.5 billion by restricting benefits for foreign nationals. Again, the IFS questions the certainty of these savings, pointing to the possibility that eligible individuals will seek to obtain British citizenship. There is a further problem with their figures, because the Department does not routinely publish a breakdown of benefit expenditure by nationality.
The Opposition need to explain precisely how they have calculated that £9.5 billion figure, what assumptions they have made about eligibility and future behaviour, and how much of that money they genuinely expect to save. Identifying a group of people and attaching a multibillion-pound saving to them is not the same as demonstrating that the saving can actually be delivered. A credible fiscal proposal needs to account for the people who acquire citizenship, those whose immigration status changes, and those who would remain eligible for support under existing rules. The IFS has already raised questions about the assumptions underpinning the Conservatives’ figures, so before Conservative Members start banking £9.5 billion in savings, perhaps they could explain how they intend to achieve them. A headline figure is not a costed policy, and a projected saving is not a saving until they can demonstrate where it will actually come from.
Perhaps the most extraordinary criticism of this approach comes from within the Conservative party. We have been here before: in 2016, the right hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith)—I notified him that I would mention him in this debate—resigned from David Cameron’s Cabinet over its approach to welfare cuts. He warned that the reductions in welfare for working people had “gone too far”, and criticised an approach to balancing the books that placed an unfair burden on the poor and vulnerable. These are the words not of a Labour politician, but of the man who designed the Conservative welfare programme and championed universal credit. I seriously think that Conservative Members should reflect on that. If even the architect of their own welfare reforms when they were last in government recognised that there was a point at which welfare cuts went too far, what exactly makes them think that another £36 billion of ill-thought-through cuts is the answer now?
I have to say that the use of the phrase “foreign nationals” intrigues me. Let me be clear: foreign nationals, in the main, are not entitled to benefits. They have no recourse to public funds. A look under the bonnet exposes the groups of people the Conservatives propose taking support from: 50,000 people who came here on humanitarian visas—half of whom, by the way, are in work. And who is entitled to a humanitarian visa? Ukrainian refugees, people who came here because they worked alongside our troops in Afghanistan, and British national overseas visa holders, particularly those from Hong Kong who are living in our constituencies.
There used to be consensus in this place that supporting the people I have just listed was virtuous, and that our commitment to our allies was unshakeable. Do the Opposition really think that the British public support cutting support for Ukrainian refugees, former soldiers and translators who worked with us in Afghanistan, and those fleeing oppression in Hong Kong? That is why they rely on such broad and politically convenient labels as “foreign nationals.” Examine the actual groups of people who would be affected, and the Conservatives’ proposals become much harder for them to defend. That is precisely why we should look beyond the headline figures and examine who would pay the price of these cuts. The next category the Conservatives talk about is refugees—people who came to this country fleeing war, persecution and famine; people who were vetted extensively and awarded refugee status by our country. The Opposition propose cutting off their access to benefits entirely. That is who they are referring to.
Helen Whately
What the hon. Member is saying about our policies is not correct.
Michael Payne
It would be really interesting to hear why it is not correct, because I have read the proposals referred to in the speech in detail. It is absolutely clear that that is who the Opposition are referring to when they use the phrase “foreign nationals”. If they want to bank made-up savings on the backs of refugees, they should come out and say so.
The next category is people with indefinite or limited leave to remain; the shadow Secretary of State mentioned them in her speech. As mentioned earlier, many of these people will simply seek British citizenship, meaning the Opposition’s claimed savings are illusory at best. It is also worth pointing out that 110,000 of these people are in work, so their benefits will likely be lower than the Opposition’s figures imply. That fact also completely blows a hole in their argument that contribution should be the basis of our welfare system. Those people contribute. They are our care workers, our nurses, and our NHS staff.
This is where the Conservatives’ argument becomes particularly difficult to understand. They tell us that welfare should reward contribution, and that people who work hard, pay taxes and contribute to our country should be recognised, yet they propose restrictions that could penalise people who are already doing precisely that. They cannot stand at the Dispatch Box championing contribution on Monday, and then propose taking away support from the people who contribute on Tuesday. Surely the test of a welfare system is not simply where somebody was born, but whether the rules are fair, whether a person is contributing where they can, and whether they receive the support to which they are entitled.
Finally, the remaining categories are “other” and “no immigration status recorded”. According to the Department’s spreadsheets, to which the Opposition have linked in their report, the “other” category includes “individuals no longer receiving UC payments”, so any savings attributed to that category are highly questionable. As for the “no immigration status recorded” category, there is as much chance that these are British nationals as not.
So what does that all mean for the £9.5 billion identified in savings? After accounting for the fact that the figure is likely to be inaccurate, accounting for those who seek British citizenship and accounting for the fact that the final two categories either contain no one claiming benefits or may not even contain foreign nationals, any remaining savings come from cuts to support for refugees, Ukrainians we have found homes for, Afghan interpreters we have an obligation to, and care workers, nurses and NHS staff we rely on.
Let us be clear about what we have established: the Conservatives have announced £9.5 billion in savings, but their own assumptions need rigorous scrutiny. Some of the people affected are refugees, some have supported our armed forces, and some are already working in our public services. Some may not even fall within the category that the Conservatives claim to be targeting. This is a very long way from the Conservative party of old, which used to be credible when delivering savings.
Let me turn to their proposal to move disabled people from the personal independence payment on to attendance allowance when they hit pension age. My word—a disabled person who worked their entire life, having assiduously saved, will finally reach the age at which they can retire, only to find that the Conservative party has ripped their personal independence payment away. I wonder how many Conservative Members have explained that proposal to the older disabled people in their constituencies. This is the problem with the Conservative welfare policy. The savings are announced in billions, but, as the Minister said earlier, the consequences are felt in individuals and families. The nasty party is truly back.
Let me be clear and unequivocal. I believe in welfare reform. I believe that those who can work should be supported and expected to work. I believe that taxpayers deserve a system that is fair, sustainable and protects public money, and I believe that fraud and abuse should be tackled robustly. Ministers should be commended for the work that they are already doing in that regard.
I also believe something equally important—that people who are genuinely sick, disabled or unable to work deserve dignity, security and compassion. Those principles are not contradictory; they are the foundations of a decent welfare state built by William Beveridge and people whose shoulders we in this House sit on. They are precisely why I support the approach of this Labour Government under the leadership of this Prime Minister. Rather than simply announcing make-believe cuts and hoping for the best, this Government are reforming the incentives within universal credit and investing £3.5 billion in employment support by the end of the decade.
We are providing personalised help to people who have too often been abandoned by the system. We are increasing the standard universal credit allowance above inflation while protecting existing recipients of the health element and those with the most severe lifelong conditions. We are supporting people into employment, not simply pushing them into poverty, and we are recognising that welfare reform cannot be separated from fixing the NHS, improving mental health services, investing in skills and creating decent jobs.
In Gedling, I meet constituents who want nothing more than the opportunity to work, contribute and build better lives for themselves and their families. They include people living with disabilities who face enormous barriers to employment, people with long-term health conditions who desperately want treatment so that they can return to the jobs that they love, and parents who work hard, pay their taxes and still struggle to make ends meet. They do not need another round of political finger-pointing or simplistic slogans like those we heard today from the shadow Secretary of State. They need a Government prepared to do the difficult work of reform. That is what this Labour Government are doing.
The Conservatives had 14 years to build a welfare system that works. Instead, they left behind a system that too often trapped people in inactivity, failed to provide the support that they needed and left taxpayers facing an increasingly unsustainable bill, as the Minister set out earlier. Now, from the comfort of opposition, out of office, they have produced a plan built around £36 billion of cuts, with serious unanswered questions about whether their figures add up.
Perhaps the most revealing part is that even their own former Work and Pensions Secretary warned nearly a decade ago that welfare cuts had gone too far. The lesson seems to be one that the Conservatives have chosen to forget. Welfare reform is not simply about how much money can be taken out of the system or somebody else’s pockets. It is about whether we can help people into work, protect those who cannot work and build a system that is sustainable for the long term.
They failed to fix the system when they had the power to do so. Now they want the country to believe that they have all the answers. Well, the British public have seen the Conservatives’ record, and this Labour Government will take absolutely no lectures from the architects of the very crisis that Ministers are now clearing up.
We will vote for welfare reform. We will protect those who need protecting. We will support those who can work into good, secure employment, and we will build a welfare state that is fair to taxpayers, compassionate to those in need and worthy of the country that we all aspire to be. That is the Labour difference, and it is one I am proud to defend.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
Order. After the next speaker, there will be a five-minute limit. Dame Priti Patel.
Priti Patel (Witham) (Con)
It is a pleasure to contribute to the debate and to have heard speeches from both Front Benches. It is also good to be debating again with the Minister for Social Security and Disability, the right hon. Member for East Ham (Sir Stephen Timms), with whom I have had similar debates on welfare reform, from the opposite side of the House, a few times in the past.
I am intrigued by what I have heard so far, although Back-Bench contributions have been limited. I think everyone in the House will agree that we have a moral duty and responsibility to ensure the welfare system in this country is functional and does what it says on the tin. It should be a safety net for those who are in need of support, and we should all work together to find ways to get more people back into work. There is no dispute on that whatever.
The hon. Member for Gedling (Michael Payne) just quoted my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Sir Iain Duncan Smith) when he was Secretary of State for Work and Pensions. I was his Minister of State, and at that time we were undertaking regression analysis to ensure there were the right taper levels so that work paid and there were the right incentives for people on universal credit. There is a lot of technicality behind this, and with regard to those circumstances, I am afraid that the hon. Member’s quotation of my right hon. Friend was not totally accurate. I was proud to serve with my right hon. Friend in that Government and of the work we undertook.
Josh Fenton-Glynn
The right hon. Lady talks about incentivising people to get back into work. In the £36 billion of savings, can she point to where the investment in getting people back into work is?
Priti Patel
There is plenty of investment, starting with the work that needs to take place at the Treasury to stop putting burdens on businesses. We can have the same conversation in the other debate later this afternoon.
Back in 2010, we inherited a fiscal position in which £1 in every £4 spent was borrowed. When up against a weak fiscal position, the Government of the day have a duty to ensure they incentivise work, get more people off welfare and back into work—particularly at a time when unemployment had been rising. [Interruption.] If the hon. Member listens and goes back and looks at how the last Conservative Government did, he will know that is the case.
We saw around 1 million young people who were not in education, employment or training. Within five years, as I said in my intervention on the Minister, the number of workless households had fallen by 600,000. Over 370,000 fewer children were growing up in households where no one had a job. That is really important, because employment levels for single parents and those with disabilities and barriers to employment had also increased. Of course, it was the combination of the Work programme—all colleagues in the House should give some time to look at this—universal credit and welfare reforms that encouraged more people into work and gave them something we should all care about: the security and dignity that comes with having a job.
None of this is easy. This afternoon, we will hear lots of point scoring, but I stood at the Government Dispatch Box along with my hon. Friends to do the heavy lifting on welfare reform. In fact, it was prior to 2010, during the Government in which the Minister served—I think he was in the Treasury; he may correct me if I am wrong—that the Work programme first came into the public domain. We all heard about how the Work programme was all about working with employers and giving them incentives to do much more to get people into work. That also led to young people getting into work and more apprenticeships.
Apprenticeship starts are not straightforward; we have to incentivise them. People with disabilities had been written off—that was why we had Disability Confident, and I am pleased to hear that more work is being done to look at that scheme to get more people into work. All those people had been written off under previous Governments.
In the past, it was easier to sign people off than to create pathways to meaningful employment. We all have a duty to work with businesses in our constituencies to help people get into work. Madam Deputy Speaker, I am sure you saw in your constituency that employment rates increased for those signed off and on benefits. We also saw a halving of youth unemployment. Those are the things that had been achieved under previous Governments. Then, of course, we had the pandemic—we have heard about that—which absolutely changed the situation.
Under previous Conservative Governments, in every debate, every question time and every Budget—this is why I made the point I did to the Minister—our welfare reforms were not supported universally in the House, including by Labour Members. As the Minister does now, I fielded endless questions, urgent questions and Westminster Hall debates from Labour Members who simply could not accept that supporting people into employment and reducing welfare dependency was the right thing to do for those who had become trapped on welfare.
Nothing is worse than seeing families trapped on welfare, with the intergenerational welfare dependency that creates. All credit to colleagues, including former Secretaries of State, who worked hard to tackle that. We have a duty to find ways to reduce the costs for taxpayers and to do more to create pathways to work.
Alex McIntyre (Gloucester) (Lab)
The right hon. Lady says that there is nothing worse than seeing a family on benefits, but there was something worse between 2010 and 2015. In 2010, the Trussell Trust had 35 food banks in this country, but by 2015, it had 1,375 handing out 1.1 million food parcels a year. Does she agree that seeing a family not able to feed themselves and their kids, despite being in work and perhaps receiving some welfare, might be worse than having a welfare state supporting them?
Priti Patel
I remember what that time was like, and I remember the arguments about food banks—there were endless debates in the House about that. Is the hon. Member telling me that food bank usage has declined? It simply has not, and that is a stain on our society. [Hon. Members: “It has!”] I am afraid that is not correct. Why are we having this debate? It is because the welfare state is growing, and it is unsustainable. There are more people out of work now.
Labour Members cannot say hand on heart that their employment policies are helping the employment market. They should come to the Witham constituency, or go to any constituency, where they will see employers—family-run businesses—struggling to recruit and employ people because of Labour’s regressive taxation policies. Higher levels of employment tax mean more unemployment, which means more people going on to welfare. These are the basic policies—[Interruption.] There is no point in trying to point score; these are basic policies that the House has to get right.
There has to be recognition right now that the current policies are not helping people get into work. It is too easy to write off people on welfare, but all credit to Opposition Front-Bench Members who are saying things that people do not want to hear. Too many labels are being attributed to people out there in society that write them off. That is a stain on society. We should be helping them and working with employers to incentivise them back into work, not just have them trapped in welfare and benefit dependency.
Dr Mullan
On employers, there are various, complex ways in which the Government are trying to unpick the damage they did with their tax rises. Big businesses will engage with such projects—they can look at them for use across their entire workforce—but smaller businesses cannot as they do not have the mental thinking space or the time to go through them. We have seen the biggest drop in employment among those smaller businesses—the people who speak to me and tell me how bad things are—but the Government seem to be completely ignoring that.
Priti Patel
My hon. Friend is right. The Minister mentioned the British Retail Consortium in relation to young people. Yes, the BRC is a nationwide organisation, but across parts of the country—the east of England, and I am sure Sussex as well—family-run businesses do not have the ability to work at that level. It is the same in the hospitality trade. We are seeing this again and again.
We see it with first jobs. For many of us, our first ever jobs were behind tills, washing up or in the service sector. As everybody knows, in my family I grew up under the till, because my family ran small shops, but while employability skills are so valuable, those experiences have gone and it is harder to get a job. That is what we are lacking right now.
I commend my hon. Friends on the Opposition Front Bench for doing the hard yards in looking at how we can be better and proposing solutions and alternatives. They might not fit everybody—it is right that we debate and discuss them—but the House must recognise that the current situation is totally unsustainable. We need to do better by those trapped in welfare and give young people in particular opportunities and hope and create pathways for good future employment.
Alex McIntyre (Gloucester) (Lab)
Yesterday, the Conservative party told young people in my constituency that they are not showing up. I want to talk about the young people in Gloucester, who are ready to show up, and about what it will take to ensure that, when they do, somebody opens the door for them.
Let us start with the Conservatives’ record. The welfare bill did not appear from nowhere; it grew on their watch in a system they designed. In the last five years of the previous Government, the number of young people not in employment, education or training rose by more than 250,000, and welfare went up by £33 billion in that Government’s last year alone. Their plan to chase after Reform, to talk down to people on benefits, to pit neighbour against neighbour and simply to shout at people that they need to go back to work is not new, either. It is the exact same playbook we saw under 14 years of Conservative Government. What happened? More young people were left behind, there were queues round the corner for food banks, and almost one in three children—many of whom had parents in work—were growing up in poverty. We also had a special educational needs and disabilities system that failed to deliver for young people in my constituency, setting so many of them off on the wrong path and writing off their life chances at the earliest stage.
Now, the Conservatives want £36 billion more in cuts, and the shadow Work and Pensions secretary has confirmed that there will be no extra money for employment support. Same plan, no new support and expecting different results is not actually a plan—it is the definition of insanity.
Of course, we all want a lower welfare bill, but the question is how we get there. Alan Milburn’s interim report is clear about the scale of the challenge: nearly 1 million young people aged 16 to 24—one in eight young people—are not in education, employment or training. The review estimates the annual cost of that to our country at £125 billion, which is more than we spend on education each year, yet only about one in five NEET young people in England is getting meaningful employment support, and less than half of the £8.1 billion spent on key benefits for young people has any participation support attached to it. That is the real scandal of the system the Government inherited: it spent billions of pounds on benefits for young people but far too little on helping them into work.
In Gloucester, more than 2,500 young people are not in employment, education or training. When I speak to them, I hear the same thing time and again: they have applied for job after job, only to be ghosted. They are not lazy. They want to work. I am pleased that this Government are acting. The £3,000 youth jobs grant supports any employer that takes on a young person who has been claiming universal credit for six months, in a genuine job of at least 25 hours per week. The Budget delivered a jobs guarantee for eligible 18 to 24-year-olds on universal credit and £100 million for local apprenticeship services. Because the Government are getting people into work rather than writing them off, like the Conservative party, we will bring the welfare bill down for good—not by slamming doors in people’s faces but by opening them.
National action must be matched by local leadership. That is why on the 30 November, I will host the Gloucestershire Futures summit at Kingsholm stadium with Gloucestershire county council. We will bring together schools and colleges, employers, health services, local government and the voluntary sector in one room, with one shared goal that no young person in Gloucestershire is left behind. I am delighted that the Skills Minister will join us. The summit builds on our Gloucester Futures programme from this summer, from which 20 young people graduated after a week with local employers and partners from Fasthosts and the University of Gloucestershire to The Music Works and the Gloucester Rugby Foundation.
In Gloucestershire, we have to make sure that support sits in the communities that need it most, that growth and opportunity are our ambition for Gloucester and not just for Cheltenham, and that national initiatives are run by trusted community partners with a stake in our city. I have two asks of the Minister. First, will he meet me after our summit on 30 November, so that the solutions that Gloucestershire’s employers and partners come up with can feed into the Government’s response to the Milburn review? Secondly, will the Minister ensure that support reaches young people where they are and not where local government sit?
The Conservatives want to talk down Gloucester’s young people but, in fact, they are already showing up. Our job and this Government’s job is to make sure that when they do, the door is open, the support is there and we get them back into work.
Bradley Thomas (Bromsgrove) (Con)
Welfare can be, and is, a lifeline for so many. Yet among those who want to work—I am pleased that the Minister mentioned that there are lots of young people who do want to work—many cannot get on to the employment ladder, and there is a real danger that welfare then becomes a trap that can burden them for the rest of their life.
When I have travelled across my constituency over the last two years, since I was elected, I have heard a pretty universal message from young people and employers. I will start with the young people. I routinely have constituents email me expressing their despair at the fact that they cannot get a job. Often they are not even offered an interview after applying for hundreds of jobs. I have met a few of those young people, and it is really tough to listen to them because I see the despair and the despondency. They wonder what they can do to cut through. Is it them? Is it the fact that they have gone and got a degree that they feel might be worthless?
Conversely, when I speak with employers in my constituency, the theme is pretty universal, particularly among businesses in the hospitality sector—I mention hospitality because it is often the first rung on the employment ladder for so many young people. I have heard the same thing from so many of them: that ever since the Government increased the cost of employment, particularly the increase in national insurance contributions for young people, they have ceased recruiting. That is damning, because it does not mean that young people cannot get their foot on the ladder; it means that the first rung on the ladder has been cut out completely. The focus from Government has to be on how that step on the ladder can be re-established. That only comes from creating a thriving, fertile environment in which employers—those who create the jobs—are incentivised to provide those opportunities for young people.
There are young people out there who take risks, but they are few and far between because the cost of establishing a business is profound. I will mention two of those young people in my constituency, Sophie and Matt, who run a business called Toploaf, which I went to on Sunday after attending remembrance services. They are in their mid-20s and have established a thriving hospitality business in Bromsgrove. However, I know that they are worried about the increasing cost of doing business and terrified about the increasing cost of energy bills, and I was told that what the Government claimed was support in the Budget will not even provide any relief for them. Indeed, UK Hospitality cited a statistic when the Budget was released that only one in 10 businesses will benefit from the relief that the Government said they are providing.
If the Government want to provide people with the very best opportunities that do not restrict them to a lifetime on welfare, they have to support the wealth creators. Those wealth creators are not just the big corporates—every large business starts as a small business. All our constituencies contain hundreds and, in some cases, thousands of small businesses where people get up each day and do the right thing to create prosperity for themselves, the community and the young people they want to recruit.
The statistics are clear. We have 10.8 million working-age people not in work and 60,000 additional NEETs since 2024. According to the official statistics, between 2024, when the Government was elected, and 2032, the welfare bill is projected to grow by a staggering £57.7 billion. What does that do? If the welfare bill is growing but opportunities for economic prosperity are not, things go only in one direction, as the burden bears down even more heavily and increasingly on those who try to create the jobs for young people. In turn, that compounds the problem and further curtails the opportunities, and we see welfare dependency grow further and further.
The Government need to reverse the increase in employers national insurance and stop leaning into councils and local government as the sole arbiters of local economic prosperity. It is not that councils do not have a role to play, but the Government must, in the first instance, get off the backs of the businesses that create the jobs that allow our young people to get on in life.
Matthew Patrick (Wirral West) (Lab)
I am a progressive. I believe in a social safety net to help people in their moment of need. That might be to manage a health condition or to deal with a moment of crisis, or it could be to support people through the natural ebbs and flows of employment, which I think we will see more of with the advent of AI. There is a challenge, however, in getting that support to work for people. It requires a safety net, which needs to be the right size. It needs to be wide enough to catch people when they fall, but not so wide that people cannot escape it. The modern safety net should not simply break someone’s fall; it should support them to get back into work.
The benefits of work are many, and those benefits can bring so much to an individual: self-esteem, money, mental health, physical health, resilience, routine, friendship, socialising and demonstrating to yourself and others that you can make a difference. I believe that the benefits are endless, which is why it is so heartbreaking when we see just how many young people do not have them.
One million young people are not benefiting from a job or not expanding their opportunities through education or training. Why? The Conservatives created the broken system that led to the outcomes we see today. They do not like to hear it, but it is true. Their system pushed people further away from the job market. They scrapped the Work and Health Programme, shut down Work Choice and left Access to Work in chaos. They made support so difficult that people were pushed towards the health component of universal credit to simply deal with the cost of living crisis.
What was the consequence of that? There was no requirement for those people to look for work, apply for jobs or do any work-related activity. The Conservatives’ system both cost more and pushed people further away from work. Their system told people that they cannot. We need a system that helps people see that they can. Members will forgive me if I do not look to the Tory party for a route to achieving that.
Simon Hoare
Does the hon. Member not kick himself that, in the 14 years that Labour sat quietly on the Opposition Benches, with think-tanks and everything else, it did zero planning for welfare reform? We are two-and-a-bit years into this Government. We await the Timms review; we await the Milburn review. Labour should have had a plan ready to go from day one, should it not? That is a missed opportunity, is it not?
Matthew Patrick
I regret the results of the Conservatives’ failure; I sincerely do. I will come on to talk about how some of the benefits of the system we are introducing now will bear fruit.
The Conservatives say they have a plan, and as Members can imagine, it is pretty thin on detail. There is something that they are clear on, however, and there is something that they have a plan for: they can save money in the here and now. I do not think it is a long-term plan, but it saves some money now and that requires us to accept putting half a million children into poverty. That is not what I got into politics for. Let us say that a Member sits on the Conservative Benches and they can stomach that. Let me ask them: what is the long-term cost to society of plunging half a million children into poverty? That, for me, is not the route to reducing welfare.
There is a better way—a sustainable way—and we have already started. It starts with sorting out the very foundations that people rely on: mental health support in our schools, waiting lists falling in our NHS and quality homes that give people security. We are building on that by creating a new jobs and careers service that brings employment skills and career support together. There is a jobs guarantee that will help support over 90,000 young people into work over the next three years. We are personalising job support for disabled people to tackle the unacceptable disability employment gap of 28%. We are taking action with £3.5 billion of support for people who are too sick or disabled to work, but who want to work. We are rewarding employers who take a chance on a young person. If they hire a young person who has been out of the jobs market for too long, they will be backed with £3,000.
I do not pretend that this will solve everything overnight, but I think it makes a big difference. It helps now, and it is a down payment on the future of our young people. When the Milburn review comes out, we will have a plan to go further still. That is how we will do this for the long term. It is about finding solutions, not scoring points. A country that is hopeful and optimistic cannot go back to the failure that leaves young people on the scrapheap. The country has seen the Tory way, and it hears what the Tories are saying now. I do not think the country likes their politics of, “Do as I say, not as I do.” It wants a new approach grounded in problem solving. That is the Labour way that we are charting, whereby we will bring down the bill by helping people get back into work. It is the long-term solution: believing in the potential of our young people, and knowing that a good job gives them so much more than simply money at the end of the month. Our constituents deserve that, our country deserves that, and I am proud to support that.
David Simmonds (Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner) (Con)
The hon. Member for Gedling (Michael Payne) made a passing reference to William Beveridge in his speech. He is not often mentioned in the Chamber these days, but it was Beveridge’s decision to nationalise and bring into the political domain what was already the most evolved and most comprehensive welfare system of any country in the world, inherited from the Conservative Government that came before, that arguably put our welfare state on to the path of unsustainability that we see today.
A statistic that should chill us all is that today, 46.7% of our people live in households that are net contributors to the United Kingdom, while 53.3%—more than half—of our population live in households that receive more from the state than they contribute. That is not just about welfare—it is also about education, healthcare and other things—but it shows is a trajectory by which a greater and greater share of national resources is consumed by things broadly badged as welfare. Those people who come here, work hard, start businesses and contribute, about whom many have spoken warmly, and those born in the United Kingdom and whose families have lived here for generations see that they are able to gain less and less through their own efforts, because more and more of the available resources are consumed by those who are not currently contributing.
Chris Curtis (Milton Keynes North) (Lab)
The hon. Gentleman makes the point that roughly half of the people in this country give more to the state and roughly half give less than they take. If, on average, a large majority of people are giving more to the state than they are taking out, where would that money be going?
David Simmonds
Clearly, the benefit for people of keeping more of the money that they make is that they spend that money on the quality of life of their families from the wealth that they have personally created by their own efforts. What we are seeing is that a greater and greater share of the wealth that they are creating and more and more of the money they are earning through their jobs, or of the profits being generated by the businesses they run, is going into a central pot for the benefit of other people and, in many cases, delivering less and less benefit to those other people.
In the recent Budget, the announcement of £100 to help with heating bills was more than offset by the cost impact of the Government’s policies on household energy bills. The Government say that housing is really important, despite the fact that their own policies in the Renters’ Rights Act 2025 have massively driven up the cost of renting a home. They have made it harder for landlords to place a home on the market, and made it harder for developers to build, resulting in accelerating insolvencies in a sector that is crucial to our national economy. In many areas, the cost of state interventions has become grossly disproportionate to the benefit that accrues to the individual, and we as a party need to accept that we have had some responsibility in some of those areas.
This is a debate about working-age welfare. We have always accepted that we protect pensioners, because once people have retired it becomes much more difficult for them to increase their income by finding another job, but we need to find a better way of ensuring that work pays and enterprise pays if we are to address the long-term conundrum of growth in this country. So many of concerns that we all share—rough sleeping is often cited by Labour Members—have surged since this Government took office. More and more people are living on the streets of this country every day because of this Government’s policies. It is welcome that they talk about introducing policies to address that, but they are trying to fix with a sticking plaster a wound that they have created by their own actions.
The same is true of housing policy. It is also true of VAT on school fees, which has left our state schools net worse off than they were before. It is particularly true of national insurance, which has driven up the cost of employing people in this country, and the so-called Employment Rights Act 2025, which has, as we have all heard, made businesses more and more wary of hiring people and giving them the opportunity to get on the ladder to a job and prosperity.
Let us not forget that this is not just about money. This is not an arid debate that is solely about balancing the books. Having a job is good for mental health, for physical health and for family wellbeing. It is the one solution that we know makes the biggest difference to people’s opportunities in life. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Witham (Priti Patel) described, one of the things that we should be proud to have done in office was to massively increase the share of working-age households earning their own living by their own efforts, rather than increasing the number who are dependent on welfare and benefits from the state.
This is a time of missed opportunity. The proposal that our Front Benchers have set out is about a subset of that issue. It is about how we deal with welfare, but it is also about how we get this country back on to a path where prosperity is something that all our people have a realistic prospect of enjoying. It is worth remembering that when the previous Chancellor set out this Government’s first Budget, it provided flat cash for every single Government Department except the NHS, and that was entirely dependent on welfare reform, which Labour Back Benchers immediately overturned. I say gently to Labour Members: please make sure that welfare reform is something you are willing to drive through, so that we can make the difference we need for this country.
Deirdre Costigan (Ealing Southall) (Lab)
The Conservatives are sat here today criticising welfare spending when we all know it was their Government that created the very system they are now complaining about. Universal credit was dreamed up by the Conservatives, and it created a system where people were better off on welfare than in a job. For under-25s, the choice was a poverty-level standard rate of £317 a month or a far higher disability rate of £747 a month—more than double. This of course created a massive incentive for young people to go on the higher rate, and because they got zero support, they were effectively consigned to never getting a job.
Since being elected, Labour has already changed this. We have cut the disability rate from £747 to £556 for those young people who may be able to work with the right support. We have made the higher rate only for those with a severe health condition or disability that is unlikely to change. This is the Labour way to reform welfare: looking after those who will never work and helping them, while encouraging those who can work to get into a good job by removing the perverse incentives that were created by the Conservatives.
The Conservatives also came up with the personal independence payment, although from the way they talk about it in this place, anyone would think it had nothing to do with them. It is a benefit that helps with the additional cost of being disabled, so it is supposed to be paid to those in work as well as to those who are not. In fact, over 80% of recipients are not working. A Unison report found that assessors routinely used the fact that a claimant was employed as justification to reduce or entirely withdraw their PIP award. As a result, disabled people left jobs or went part time to keep their PIP. This was yet another perverse incentive created by the Conservative benefits system, which made people better off not working.
Those perverse incentives are why, in the Tories’ final year in government, the welfare bill rose by £33 billion and almost 3 million people were not working because of long-term sickness. For over a decade, the Conservatives presided over a system that meant people were better off on benefits, and it is only now that they have been kicked out that they have decided it needs to change, but their answer is to slash benefits crudely in a way that would only see massive increases in child poverty and homelessness. It is a false economy, as the money will only have to be spent again on other public services.
Deirdre Costigan
Under the last Labour Government, work was the cornerstone of everything that we did, and we will continue with that under this Labour Government.
As I said, the Opposition’s approach to welfare is a false economy, and we will end up spending the money again on public services. It would just move the cost from the welfare bill to the NHS and local authorities. Their plan to bring back the two-child limit would see 3,660 children in Ealing Southall fall into poverty. That is not just a statistic; it is 3,660 children in Ealing Southall going hungry and cold, and it is the taxpayer who would still end up picking up the tab. The Conservatives’ claim to be able to cut £13 billion from disabled people’s benefits seems like a random number they plucked from the sky with no real plan.
The Leader of the Opposition says she can cut this £13 billion because
“Double amputees run marathons… People with autism”
have set up “tech companies”. She may be right about a very small number of people, but she should tell that to the parents in my constituency with non-verbal and developmentally disabled autistic children—parents who spend every single day of their lives fearing what will happen to their grown-up child when they die. I can only imagine how utterly crass and insensitive the Leader of the Opposition’s comments must sound to those parents.
Instead of scaring those parents, Labour is taking a measured approach to changing the system. We have commissioned the Timms report to look at making PIP fit for the modern world, where we know so much more about the impact of mental health and fluctuating conditions than we did a decade ago, and we have commissioned the Milburn review, which will radically change how we support young people to get into work.
Already Labour is spending £3.5 billion on employment support for sick and disabled people with personalised support through Connect to Work. We have invested in new apprenticeships and introduced a jobs guarantee, with paid work for six months, backed by mentoring and tailored support. Those reforms are part of our work to address the broken welfare system inherited from the previous Government and to ensure that the system supports those who can work while protecting those who cannot.
The Conservatives’ approach to welfare spending is to let it run out of control when they are in government and then come up with crude and financially illiterate cuts when they are out of government and will not have to deliver them. Instead of making families and their children sick, homeless and dependent on food banks, Labour’s choice is to bring down welfare spending in a safe and sustainable way by doing one simple thing: making people better off in work. That is the Labour way and that is the way that we will deliver.
Sir Alec Shelbrooke (Wetherby and Easingwold) (Con)
I am going to take a slightly different tack in this debate because as the shadow Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Faversham and Mid Kent (Helen Whately), said, one of the reasons why welfare reform is needed is to cut the bill because we have to invest more in defence. That is being pushed down the road—the Government say that we may get to 3% of GDP by the end of the decade and 3.5% by 2035, but we know that what was asked for in the strategic defence review would not even get close to funding that.
I am going to say something that makes it feel like it is the 1930s: war is coming. How are we going to fund that? It is vital that we reduce welfare spending, because as my hon. Friend the Member for Faversham and Mid Kent said, we cannot have welfare security without security. That lies at the heart of this question. As the Leader of the Opposition said, it is not just that we have to fund defence; we have to be able to fund defence, and we are not able to do that now.
Mike Martin (Tunbridge Wells) (LD)
Here is some crude maths: if we want to get to 3.5% on defence, it will cost about £30 billion extra a year, so where will that money come from? Furthermore, why are the Conservatives not supporting the Government on restricting the triple lock, because that would help with funding the future defence budget?
Sir Alec Shelbrooke
The first thing I will say to the comment about the triple lock is that the Prime Minister has done what the Prime Minister usually does: he said he is going to reform the triple lock but then said nothing else. It is very difficult to comment, given that we do not have a clue what he might be talking about. My second point is that it is not about how much the defence review would cost; it is about the fact that it has to be done. We have threats coming towards us—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
Order. The right hon. Gentleman, as an experienced Member of the House, will know that the debate is about welfare, not defence. I can see where he is going, but he needs to tie it more closely to the motion.
Sir Alec Shelbrooke
Well, the reality is that the motion is about welfare reform, which is about saving money. Members on the Opposition Front Bench have outlined the savings that we could make, and there has been much comment from the Government Benches, not least the accusation that people with mental health conditions are being stigmatised. There have also been accusations concerning people’s inability to work if they have an ADHD diagnosis. I would counter those accusations by arguing that when someone is told that, because they have a certain condition, they should not have to go into the workplace, that becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy.
Many statistics have been thrown about in this debate on the increase in welfare from 2022, but in reality that period covers a time when a group of people left the school system and went straight on to welfare. It is all very well dismissing what happened during the pandemic, but it is crass, quite frankly, to say, “Well, it had no impact later on; that was all down to you.” The Leader of the Opposition has made it clear that, yes, welfare was not properly reformed, and the adjustments that needed to be made to universal credit did not happen during our time in power. That is a fact. It changed because people felt they needed more support and said, “Well, if you were going to give it on those grounds, you can give it to me on these grounds.” Of course, the other side of it is that an adjustment has not been made for the fact that there are now plenty of social media instructions on how to cheat the system. We have to address those issues, and we have to be able to understand what is being said.
To the Liberal Democrat spokesman, the hon. Member for Torbay (Steve Darling), who said that welfare was running out of control, I say that it was his leader who said back in March 2022, at the start of the war in Ukraine, when people’s mortgage rates started to rise, that the Government should be paying for those increases. That is a ridiculous policy, and it speaks to this whole idea that the Government should step in for every aspect of life that people find a bit hard. Life is hard. When we talk about people having anxiety, it is called being an adult, in a lot of ways. We all have anxiety. Most people in this building could lose their job tomorrow and would find that hard. That is anxiety. [Interruption.] There is a bit of chuntering from Members on the Government Benches; I know they are probably all nervous because they do not know whether the Prime Minister is going to go to the country. There has been plenty of speculation about that—bring it on, I say.
The reality of the situation is that if we carry on telling people that they do not have to go into the workplace because they have been diagnosed with something, and if we put more and more labels on them, it will become impossible to get them back into work, because they keep being told that they have a reason not to want to work, and to a certain extent they have been led down that path over quite a long period of time.
Welfare reform is necessary, but the things being said in this debate are all about future ideas. Nothing solid is coming across. There is a lot of theory coming across, but without savings we will not be able to invest in the defence and security we need to ensure that people have a secure nation and welfare security.
Daniel Francis (Bexleyheath and Crayford) (Lab)
I start by declaring my interests. I chair the all-party parliamentary groups for wheelchair users and for access to disability equipment. I am also the parent of 13-year-old twins, one of whom I hope will work every day of her working life, and one of whom is on disability living allowance and, I know, will never work a single day of her life. I will refer to that lived experience later in my speech.
That is the lived reality for many people in this debate, and we need to listen to that. We need to listen to people like the hon. Member for Torbay (Steve Darling) and his lived experience. Some 75% of blind and partially sighted people in this country are not in work—a legacy of the last Government and something that this Government must get right. Again, while the Conservatives lecture us, that is the inheritance they left us. He is not currently in his place, but I thank the Minister for Social Security and Disability, my right hon. Friend the Member for East Ham (Sir Stephen Timms), who visited my constituency last year to meet my disability charities, to hear their lived experience and to hear their good ideas for how things could work better.
This is not just a DWP issue. We will not get this right unless we look at what is going on in other Departments, such as the Department of Health and Social Care and the Department for Education. This morning I was with the Public Service Ombudsman as it launched its report into complaints about wheelchair contracts in the NHS. The report was clear that if we do not get those contracts right, wheelchair users will not return to work. On education, my goodness, we have inherited a hell of a mess in the SEND system, and a system that looked at excellence but not necessarily inclusion. Why are we therefore surprised that we have this crisis of people not being in education, employment or training? It is because we did not think about or plan for the long-term opportunities for those people.
We have left lots of young people on education, health and care plans post-16 in courses that are totally unsuitable for them, just as a way of extending the EHCP, and then we wonder why they do not have the skills needed for work. Sometimes they drop out of the system and become NEETs. The SEND reforms that this Government will bring forward will start to plan those matters so we work with those young people at that transition to understand their long-term prospects.
When I worked in retail it was not just a student job; I spent 11 years with Marks and Spencer—some of that time as a recruitment and HR manager, but most of it on the shop floor. A lot of my time was spent on these kinds of programmes with disabled people. A lot of that has gone by the way over the years, but this Government are bringing some of those schemes back. I go into the Bexleyheath store in my constituency and there are two people with learning disabilities who I worked with over 30 years ago who are still there in those jobs—jobs they are proud to have for their whole working lives. It is those schemes, which this Government are reinstating, that will bring that back.
As I said earlier, the real crisis with costs was not covid; it was 2022 to 2024, and the stats show that. My wife and I both had to give up full-time work in 2016, the year my child had 100 medical appointments, because it was unsustainable. I know from my lived experience of the impact on a family when they are drawn into that cycle of disability and carers and the problems that brings. It was a Conservative council that sent a social worker to my house and told us we would be better going on universal credit than trying to carry on part-time jobs and support our family in the best way we could. That kind of information, at the back end of the last Conservative Government, was given to families like mine, who were put on the scrapheap. This Labour Government will turn that around in the announcements we will make in the coming weeks, in the Milburn and Timms reviews, to finally reinstate that working support for disabled people in this country.
I will take no lectures on savings from the Conservatives. One of the first things I did with the previous Secretary of State, when I became an MP in 2024, was bring her the four-page letter my daughter had received every Christmas for eight years, telling her that she was going to get a £10 Christmas bonus—the money they were wasting sending people four-page letters every year, for eight years in my case, to tell them they were going to get a £10 bonus. They had no idea what was going on in their Department. The previous Secretary of State in our Government scrapped that letter at my request. The Conservatives have no room at all to start talking to us about waste in the Department.
Yes, there are reforms we need to make. Yes, there is more we will need to do to get disabled people back to work. I will support the savings, and there will be difficult conversations about the disabilities that people have, but I will never take lectures from the people who left us this mess.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
Order. I will reduce the time limit to four minutes after the next speaker.
Dr Neil Shastri-Hurst (Solihull West and Shirley) (Con)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford (Daniel Francis), who speaks with real personal experience in this area. Although we may not agree on the treatment for the diagnosis, I have huge respect for the insights he brings to the Chamber on this issue.
I do not think this particular motion should be controversial. I think it should be welcomed across the House that there is a desire to bring down the welfare bill among working-age people, because that is a compassionate position to take, and I will set out why I think that is compassionate. The opposite position lacks the compassion we should be showing those people who want to be establishing their working lives, who want to be contributing, and who want to have that independence and that ownership, because this all comes as part of the social contract that forms part of our society.
General taxation is there for the benefit of the whole of society, whether that is funding our police forces, our defence and the NHS, or supporting those who are vulnerable through the welfare state, but it is essential that the process is fair. The welfare system should be seen as a form of societal insurance and not a form of charity. It does not benefit anyone if we make them dependent upon a system opposed to enabling them to participate as fully as they can in our wider society. The fact that the Office for Budget Responsibility predicts that the total expenditure for working-age benefits will breach £220 billion by 2030-31 should be a matter of great concern to us all, as is the fact that the number of people not in education, employment or training has broken the 1 million barrier and has increased by some 60,000 since the start of this Parliament.
The Fonagy report, which has been referred to, provided some interesting statistics, particularly the fact that the population prevalence of conditions such as ADHD and other neurodiverse conditions has not increased in the last few years. What has happened, however, is there has been a much greater administrative prevalence of those conditions, and we have to ask questions about why that is the case.
There is also a legitimate conversation to be had about medicalising or over-medicalising neurodiversity. There are, of course, those individuals who suffer neurodiverse disorders to such an extent that they are unable to work and will be unable to work throughout their lives, but neurodiversity is actually a variance of human nature. We are not all built the same; we vary in our skillsets and our personalities. Neurodiversity is part of that picture, and we should be harnessing it to enable those young people to get into the workplace.
There is also an argument of fairness, because those who pay into the system want to know that it is being spent in a fair and equitable way—it is taxpayers’ money after all. Nobody begrudges those who genuinely need support from having it, but what they do begrudge is a situation—I have encountered this when speaking to young people in my constituency—in which young people have gone out and worked, and they have friends who were on the same university course, for example, who have then gone on to benefits and are financially in a better position than them.
That is not the way we should be supporting our young people. It does not allow them to grow or establish the full lives that we all want them to have. It also deeply damages that social contract with the wider public, because if an increasing number of people feel that the system no longer adequately distributes wealth and does not represent the importance of paying in and supporting those who belong in it, we will find that there will be a growing resentment—not against those who are unable to work, but against those who can work but choose not to do so. That fundamentally damages the reciprocity of the social contract of this country.
Natasha Irons (Croydon East) (Lab)
May life grant me the confidence, conviction, and lack of shame of a Conservative MP who is enraged by problems that they either helped to create or did nothing about when they had the chance. I do not think there has been a Conservative Government in my lifetime who have not said that they would cut welfare spending, and then attempted to blame their failure to do so on the sick, the poor and the young, and what we hear from the Opposition today is the same old approach, which would lead to the same old failures from the same old Tories.
I am old enough to remember when George Osborne promised us a high-wage, low-tax, low-welfare country. Instead, we saw child poverty skyrocket, food banks open in every community, young people written off, and a welfare bill that went up by a record £33 billion in the Conservatives’ last year in power alone. Opposition Members cannot be trusted to fix the welfare system, because they are unwilling to be honest about how the money would be spent, or to simply address the question of why people need support. They know full well that most of the welfare bill is spent on pensions, and that in the future, to protect pensions, decisions will have to be taken, such as on whether to adjust the triple lock. Instead, what we get from the Opposition is a bogus petition designed to stoke fear and division, proposals to push children back into poverty, and an open attack on the working poor. The Opposition’s proposals fail to acknowledge that 3.1 million people receiving universal credit this year are in work, that one in five working-age people receiving personal independence payments are in employment, and that 58% of households helped by the removal of the two-child benefit cap have at least one parent in work.
If we are genuinely to reduce dependency on welfare, we must tackle the things that make people need that support in the first place: low pay, poor health, the cost of housing and, perhaps most importantly, child poverty. As research from the Joseph Rowntree Foundation shows, young people who experience persistent childhood poverty are 3.4 times more likely to be out of education and employment by the time they turn 23. That should concern every Member of this House, because poverty does not simply disappear when a child turns 18; it can shape their education, health and opportunities for the rest of their life. If we fail to address those barriers today, we risk creating greater costs for our welfare system tomorrow.
The sad thing is that everyone in this House agrees that the system can and should be fixed, because a system that spends £1 on support for every £25 on benefits is not right. Is it time to do this differently, and to work across the House to design a system that is about lifting people up, instead of writing them off? I am proud that this Labour Government have removed the two-child benefit cap and lifted half a million children out of poverty. I welcome the £3.5 billion investment in employment support for the sick and disabled. Reducing welfare dependency cannot simply mean reducing the support that people need; it should mean reducing the need for that support in the first place, and that cannot be achieved by the same old approach that leads to the same old failures from the same old Tories.
Lara Bird (Arbroath and Broughty Ferry) (SNP)
It is heartbreaking that we still have a such a large proportion of working poor in our society, and that so many people across my constituency, and the constituencies of others Members, are working hard, making sacrifices and doing their best, yet are still being punished by increasingly oppressive policies that take one look at the reality of hardship faced by folk, and decide to look the other way. One thing that is clear, and has always been clear, is that we cannot cut our way to prosperity—the Tories’ own record shows that to be true. The way to get the welfare bill down is not to arbitrarily pick targets and experiment with people’s lives to score political points, and it is genuinely insulting that Conservative Members can come here today and try to offer half-baked solutions to problems that they created.
This is largely a problem of the Conservative party’s own making. Conservative Members are trying to blame those in our society who rely on support because they cannot accept responsibility for their own actions. We must make it clear how misguided at best, or intentionally reckless at worst, the Conservative party is when it comes to welfare, because its austerity-fuelled cuts were linked directly to rising levels of poverty, and they have exacerbated the overall cost, long term. Anyone minded to listen to the Conservative party on their arbitrary welfare targets might need to seriously check themselves.
Of course we do not want people to rely on welfare long term, but there is a trend over past years—largely instigated by Conservative Members, but it is increasingly found wider afield—to blame those who rely on additional support for Government mismanagement, instead of recognising that many who receive such support are already valuable, contributing members of our society. This trend completely fails to address why so many working-age, motivated and skilled individuals still have no choice but to rely on additional support. Indeed, many people are able to contribute to our society and economy only because they receive additional support. Rather than blame those people, there must be more intense scrutiny of why so many people have to rely on that support, why so many are dependent on universal credit despite being in full-time employment, and why so many young people are relying on jobseeker’s allowance. It is not because they do not want to work and are not looking for work; it is because the Labour Government have priced them out of employment by creating such a hostile hiring environment. So many parents and families rely on the Scottish child payment because life is just so unaffordable.
I am especially concerned about young people who are coming of age today. A young person in my constituency who graduated from a university in England or Wales might have over £60,000 of debt, which they will likely be paying off for their entire life, and that amount will rise year on year because of interest. They have started paying that debt back earlier because Labour refused to amend the threshold freeze. A young person might not be able to find a job because the employer national insurance contribution hike is pricing young people out of work, or because of the refusal to cut VAT on hospitality, or because of the total mismanagement of minimum wage reforms. A young person could be paying more than £1,000 in energy bills; they are due to rise again in January, because of Labour’s choices. A young person who cannot afford to save knows that they will likely never buy a house, might never receive a state pension, and faces unaffordable monthly living costs.
As one of the youngest Members in this House, it is so frustrating to come here and hear others speaking about the reality for young people without actually understanding what they are facing, and to see the discrepancy between apparent support from the Government and the reality for young people in my constituency. Yes, I want the welfare bill to come down, but the way to reduce it is to introduce effective employment support. The SNP will not support the Opposition motion this afternoon, and it is laughable to think that anyone would take their lead when it comes to addressing the welfare budget.
Sean Woodcock (Banbury) (Lab)
I start by disappointing Conservative Members: I agree with some of what they are saying. The welfare bill is too high, and too many young people are not in education, employment or training; it is morally indefensible. The problem is that Conservative Members seem to have forgotten who was in charge when those trends first took hold. In their final year in office, the welfare bill rose by a record £33 billion. Listening to some of the speeches this afternoon, one might think that Conservative Members had spent 14 years campaigning against Conservative Governments. They are right to highlight the growing number of young people who are not in education, employment or training, but it is not a new problem. It did not begin last year, or in July 2024; it grew on their watch, and yes, it has continued since. Frankly, that should prompt some humility, not self-righteousness from Conservative Members.
I also agree with Conservative Members when they say that we need to spend much more on defence. What puzzles me, however, is the argument that all we need to do is cut welfare, and the defence budget will somehow take care of itself. If it is that easy, why did they not do it? They had 14 years in government, and over those 14 years, welfare spending rose while, in the words of a former Defence Secretary, our armed forces were “hollowed out”. What exactly are Conservative Members asking us to learn from their example—that it is entirely possible to end up with a growing welfare bill and shrinking military capability at the same time? Anyone on the Opposition Benches can demand cuts, but it is the responsibility of the Government to ensure that reform actually works.
Earlier this year, I brought together a group of young people from my constituency who were not in education, employment or training. Not one of them told me that welfare was the reason that they were out of work. They talked about poor or non-existent careers advice; artificial intelligence and the rapidly changing labour market; and struggling to get employers to give them a chance, because they lacked confidence or soft skills, in some cases. In other words, they talked about barriers. We can ignore those barriers and make speeches about random, crude cuts to welfare, or we can try to deal with them. I would much rather do the latter. Real welfare reform is not measured by how much money leaves the Treasury; it is measured by how many people can enter and remain in work.
The Opposition are right to demand welfare reform and stronger defence, but they have no right to pretend that they bear no responsibility for the position in which this country finds itself on either score. After their 14 years in government, the welfare bill had risen and our military was hollowed out. The country needs welfare reform and stronger defence, but demanding change is not the same as delivering it. The real test is whether more people find work, whether barriers are removed, and whether our armed forces are genuinely stronger. None of those challenges will be solved by that lot on the Opposition Benches pretending that the previous 14 years did not happen.
Dr Kieran Mullan (Bexhill and Battle) (Con)
I have a solemn duty to talk about an incredibly difficult and challenging statistic in relation to the prosperity of this country: the size and scale of worklessness in our country right now. Some 6.7 million working-age people are claiming benefits and are not in work. That is one in six of our working-age population. I do not know how anyone can hear that statistic and not be horrified by what it represents for the prosperity of a country that seeks to do well. Historically, that figure has been around one in 10. It causes me particular concern, for a number of reasons, that today’s figure is related to an increase in claims for mental health challenges and disabilities.
We have talked about the challenges of ensuring that people do not feel stigmatised or labelled in a way that will not be conducive to their finding work. When it comes to mental health conditions such as depression, we have to recognise that getting in work and getting a job is advantageous to someone’s mental health, and that not working is a disadvantage to their mental health. I am afraid that there is also the challenge of fraud in the benefits system. We all have to accept that the benign view of human nature that we have heard expressed by Government Members, in which no one is ever induced or encouraged to make a claim that might not reflect their reality, is naive in the extreme.
Dr Mullan
Let me finish my point.
The fact is that mental health conditions are almost entirely self-reported. People are asked questions that relate to how they feel, what their mood is and what they can or cannot do, and we must accept that that inevitably has a risk of inducing or encouraging people to exaggerate their claims. The hon. Member for Ealing Southall (Deirdre Costigan) is not in her place any more, but she inadvertently accepted that point when she talked about the disability living allowance, and how the changes that were made encouraged people to put in higher claims. That in itself is admitting that people say or do different things depending on the available incentives.
We must not forget that a welfare system does not exist in isolation; it is part of a wider society. All of us face a complex mixture of incentives and disincentives to do the right thing. There will be people at either end of the spectrum, but a lot of people are at a point in between. That is why I support our policies, which make it very clear that when it comes to access to cash, being on benefits is not the same thing as being in work, and it should not be the same thing. I support our plans to make the welfare state more about helping and supporting people with the things that they need, rather than just giving them money. That is also why I support our plans on the two-child benefit cap. We should never create a situation in which people who are working have to make tough decisions that those on benefits are excluded from having to make.
Government Members like to say that benefits are claimed by people in work, which is true, but the claimant numbers do not reflect how the money is spent. More than 80% of the money spent is spent on people who are not in work. A much smaller proportion of expenditure is on people who are in work. That is why I support the idea that the system should have two tracks: a track for people who have put into the system, who can then fairly ask more of it when they are in need, versus a track for people who have never put into the system. These are the incentives and disincentives that we all interact with in society. When I meet and speak to people on the frontline who work with people who are in poverty and claiming the support of charities and other sectors, they are very clear about that. They will freely talk about the people who come to see them—the people who they think are legitimate and really in need, and the people who they think are not. That is why I find it so extraordinary that Government Members never seem to want to acknowledge what we all know is a real pressure in society.
Daniel Francis
We heard from the hon. Member for Torbay (Steve Darling) that 20 or 30 years ago, a person born with a brain injury would be unlikely to survive. Today, such people survive and live with a disability for the rest of their life—people like my daughter. Is the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle (Dr Mullan) really saying that because those people have never paid in or contributed, they are not entitled to any help from the state?
Natasha Irons
The hon. Member is talking about contributions and people who have contributed. Does that include foreign nationals?
Dr Mullan
I do not think that foreign nationals should be entitled to benefits, because of the basis on which they are allowed into our country. The only reason they are allowed into our country is that they are net contributors. Why would we undermine that by allowing them to be net recipients of benefits? They are only here because they have signed up to the idea that they will come and be net contributors, so I do not think that that entitles them.
Natasha Irons
Just so that I am clear, if somebody is born in another country, comes here and gets citizenship or indefinite leave to remain, and has contributed to the system because they have been working, should they be able to claim from the system? That was my question. They may well have been a high earner, but they may have fallen on hard times and fallen back on the system that we all rely on, and they may have contributed to that system.
Dr Mullan
They are citizens, are they not? They have signed a deeper contract with the country that they are in, and they are here under a different set of circumstances. The hon. Member needs to be clearer when she asks her questions in relation to two different groups of people, because we treat them very differently in our proposals. There is a distinction.
Let me make a final point that is often not talked about enough. We are all incredibly focused on what the Government should do to help people and how taxpayers should help people. We know that for very many people in poverty, a big factor in that is having absent parents who give them absolutely no money or pitiful amounts of money for very many years. We also know that a large proportion of families with children who are in absolute poverty would not be in poverty if an absent parent who is not paying was paying.
I wish that there was as much focus on the dereliction of duty that parents too often show to their children and the complete failure for decades to tackle that issue, across all parties, as there is on what taxpayers and the state should deliver. That is a significant moral failing that we are too shy to talk about in this country, and it does not get the attention that it needs. If all parents, whether they have split up or are together, contributed to the upkeep of their children, we would see a lot less child poverty; I wish that MPs on all sides of the House were as invested in that issue as they are in deciding how much the state should pay in their place.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Caroline Nokes)
With an immediate three-minute limit, I call Chris Curtis.
Chris Curtis (Milton Keynes North) (Lab)
Let me start on that last point. I am the proud son of a single mother, and I am probably standing here today only because of the support that she got from the last Labour Government.
There are three things that we as Members can agree on. First, the welfare bill is too high, and the trajectory is unsustainable. Spending on disability benefits alone has risen from £45 billion last year and is forecast to reach almost £70 billion by 2031-32. If we want to protect the welfare state, we must make it more sustainable. Secondly, we have a duty to protect those who cannot work and provide a safety net for those who work but have fallen on hard times. That is what the welfare state is for.
Thirdly, helping more people into work is good not only for the Treasury, but, as many people have said, for those individuals. Good work brings dignity, purpose, independence and often better health. That matters, because this debate is presented as a contrast between those who are willing to reform the welfare system and those who want the status quo, but I reject that. I believe in reforming the welfare state because I am a Labour politician, not despite it. The disagreement is on how we do that and the determination with which we push through changes.
We have seen that just announcing spending cuts does not achieve them. The Conservatives announced £11 billion of welfare cuts in 2010. In 2015, they promised another £12 billion. When they introduced PIP, they expected it to reduce spending by 20% compared with the system that it replaced; instead, the OBR said that it increased spending. Even before the pandemic, working-age disability benefits spending was rising by more than 5% a year in real terms. Announcing savings does not always lead to delivering them.
There are two reasons for that, both of which are relevant to the Opposition’s proposals. First, cutting one benefit can simply move the cost elsewhere. Take local housing allowance; the Opposition have announced that they are going to add extra limits to that, as well as reinstate the two-child benefit limit. Imagine a family with three young children who are already struggling to pay the rent. They could lose support for their third child while their housing allowance is pegged to a level that covers only the cheapest tenth of local properties. What happens is that they can now no longer afford their home. Quite rightly, I think there is consensus across the Chamber that we do not leave children sleeping on the pavement, and I do not believe the Opposition are arguing against that.
David Simmonds
The hon. Gentleman is talking about local housing allowance. The Prime Minister said that he felt a freeze in local housing allowance was simply a cost-shunt on to local authorities, but the Chancellor went ahead and did it anyway. Does the hon. Gentleman think the Chancellor was right, or was the Prime Minister right to criticise him?
Chris Curtis
I sit on the Housing, Communities and Local Government Committee, and we have discussed raising LHA a lot. However, the Conservatives’ proposal goes even further, and would ultimately have a real effect on the temporary housing bill. Last year, councils in England spent £2.9 billion on temporary accommodation. In London, the number of homeless children in such accommodation is equivalent to at least one in every classroom—if you cut in one place, it whacks the cost up somewhere else. That is before we get on to the wider costs, including disrupting schooling, parents being forced out of work, and pressure on the NHS.
Most horrifically of all, in the six years since 2019, 104 children died with temporary accommodation recorded as contributing to their vulnerability, ill health or death. Seventy-six of those children were under the age of one. We all accept that policies involve trade-offs, but that is probably one that we should all find pretty difficult to stomach. For the Conservatives to put forward such a policy without even having modelled its impact on temporary accommodation and wider impact on the welfare bill, shows that those proposals have not been well thought through.
Yes, we need to come up with sustainable ways to address the welfare bill. We will see more from the reviews that are coming forward, and I will be proud to support them.
Simon Hoare (North Dorset) (Con)
From 2010 to 2024, every reform was opposed and every initiative was rebuffed by people who sat on the Opposition Benches. Labour Members remind me of St Augustine, because they try to tell us that they are now serious about welfare reform. Their prayer is “Make me a welfare reformer, but not yet”, because when they had the opportunity to introduce some reform, they rebelled. Keir Starmer blinked, the rebels got their way, and the reform agenda was kiboshed. The Prime Minister lost his authority, and the rest, as they say, is history. Do not take my word for it; the current Secretary of State for Work and Pensions told the whole world. He said that “Every meeting I have” with Labour MPs—not some, not the majority, but every meeting—
“is ‘Who can we tax in order to pay benefits to others?’”.
Sir Alec Shelbrooke
Going back to the speech made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Witham (Priti Patel), when she was the Minister of State for Employment, I was her Parliamentary Private Secretary. We would sit through many a Westminster Hall debate secured by the Opposition, who are now the Government, complaining that we just were not spending enough. They said about every reform we brought forward, “Not good enough. You need to spend more.” There was never any attempt to reduce the welfare bill.
Simon Hoare
My right hon. Friend is right. As I said in an intervention on the hon. Member for Wirral West (Matthew Patrick), the Government had 14 years to plan for this great reform and modernisation of welfare, and they did nothing with it. They arrive in government, and precious little happens.
Sean Woodcock
Is the hon. Gentleman’s position seriously that it is Labour’s fault that the welfare bill went up under the Conservatives?
Simon Hoare
No, that would be an asinine interpretation of what I have just said. The point I am making is that every time the Conservative party came up with a reform or a modernisation when in government, the gut reaction of the Labour party was to oppose it.
I happen to think that the welfare state is one of our crowning glories. It was brought in to address a number of deeply systemic societal problems, and it has been a tremendous force for good and transformation in our country. However, it is always intended to be a safety net, a permanent safety net for those who—as a result of disability, for example—find themselves unable to enter the workplace. It removes pressure and anxiety, and it gives people the dignity to live that they quite legitimately deserve, but it should never have been allowed under successive Administrations to become a cocoon. It has ceased to be a safety net; it has become a trap with perverse, Kafkaesque incentives, where the cumulative benefits an individual can receive are greater than anything they could hope to aspire to when getting into a job for the first time. I hope the House can agree that there is nothing kind or caring about trapping people in that sort of environment.
We all know—as various right hon. and hon. Members have mentioned in their speech—the fundamental importance and transformative nature of work for individuals, their families and their communities. It promotes a sense of self-respect, self-reliance, and being able to do things for yourself.
Simon Hoare
I will not. The benefits of work are clear and unquestionable, yet we are trapping people through perverse incentives; if they earn an extra pound here or there, they suddenly lose a great slew of benefits. Surely—I say this to Members on the Treasury Bench—we will have to be far more imaginative and far more bespoke in how we approach welfare. We should be using digital and the raft of opportunities it offers to provide a far more bespoke, personally tailored network of support to get people back into work, rather than trapping them.
I want to say one thing about disability, as I had the honour of chairing the all-party parliamentary group for multiple sclerosis in the last Parliament. We will get more disabled people back into work because they want to stay in work—for all the reasons I have set out—if they have the confidence that they can ask their employer for reasonable adjustments, and if their employer has the confidence to ask what the employee might need in order to stay in work. Let us not have a slanging match across the two Dispatch Boxes; let us try to work cross-party. It will be good for the economy and good for our people up and down the land, and it will generate greater tax receipts to pay for the social services, defence and other areas that we want to see expenditure in. However, the status quo cannot be defended.
Richard Baker (Glenrothes and Mid Fife) (Lab)
What we should be talking about in this debate is root-and-branch reform of our welfare system, providing more opportunities for work for those who can work while protecting those who cannot. We should be talking about innovation and investment in employability to tackle the scourge of youth unemployment in our communities. What we should not have is the weaponisation of this debate and point scoring by a party whose record on this issue does not stand up to the slightest scrutiny.
On the Conservatives’ watch, spending on incapacity and disability benefits for working-age adults rose by £20 billion between 2019 and 2024, while progress on closing the disability employment gap stalled. When they left office, nearly 900,000 young people were not in education, employment or training and the disability employment gap stood at nearly 30%. The legacy in my constituency is that Fife has the fourth-lowest rate of 16 to 19-year-olds in education, training or work of Scotland’s 32 council areas. In Buckhaven and Methil in my constituency, one in eight of those aged 16 to 19 is a NEET, putting the area among the five worst wards in the whole of Scotland.
It is not rocket science to work out how that happened. We had a Conservative Government at Westminster failing to take the action required to provide more opportunities for our young people and to close the disability employment gap. Regrettably, we had an SNP Scottish Government cutting budgets for skills and training. I hope that Scottish Ministers will respond positively to the Prime Minister’s invitation to work with the UK Government to devolve powers and resources on employment to Scotland’s regions, as we are doing in England and Wales.
Importantly, this Government are not waiting for the final conclusions of the Milburn review, but are instead heeding the important call for change made in his interim report. We have the youth guarantee, backed by £1.5 billion of funding. We are introducing the youth jobs grant to incentivise employers to hire young people who have been on universal credit for six months. The Secretary of State recently had the opportunity to visit the youth hub in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for West Dunbartonshire (Douglas McAllister). Young people who had never worked before are already finding jobs as a result of the support they are receiving from the youth hub.
There is plenty of evidence of what works with employability support. The community trade hub in Buckhaven in my constituency is reaching young people who were non-attenders at school, but are now getting the skills they need for the work of the future. The brilliant Enable Works scheme, where I used to work, is bringing third sector organisations together with expertise in employability. Could the work of the third sector make an even greater contribution with this vital change for disabled people, for young people and for our country?
Joe Robertson (Isle of Wight East) (Con)
No welfare system stands the test of time in perpetuity. Loopholes appear in all well-intentioned systems. People test the system, and the world does not stand still. That is why the last Conservative Government came into office with a plan to tackle the welfare bill that had ballooned under Labour, and they did tackle welfare.
The right hon. Member for East Ham (Sir Stephen Timms) asked earlier in this debate, “In which years under the last Conservative Government did the welfare bill come down?” I am happy to be able to assist him. Under the last Conservative Government, the working welfare bill came down in 2012. It came down in 2013. It came down in 2014. It came down in 2015. It came down in 2016. It came down in 2017. It came down in 2018. It came down in 2019. Between 2010 and 2019, the working welfare bill came down by a fifth. That is the legacy of the last Conservative Government’s reforms.
I live in the real world, and I accept that covid changed everything. It changed the relationship between the individual and the state. From that time, the welfare bill started to climb. Those were the conditions that Labour knew it would have to deal with as it came into government, and it failed to deliver. Labour did not even have a plan to tackle the welfare bill, which it knew had been climbing year on year since covid.
At least the last Prime Minister, Keir Starmer, cobbled together some form of plan. It was a pretty rubbish plan, but a year and a half ago he tried to get some crude cuts through the House of only £5 billion-worth of savings. He failed, though, because the same MPs sitting opposite me now on the Government Benches stopped him. The current Prime Minister came into office a few months ago and flirted with the idea of bringing down the welfare bill, but he has given up entirely and he is proud of it. He is so proud that he will not bring the welfare bill down that he has ruled it out for the remainder of this Parliament.
The right hon. Member for East Ham has been tasked with finding savings, and he is about to publish his review into PIP. We know what will be in that review when it comes to savings: absolutely nothing, because the Prime Minister has already ruled it out. The Labour party is the welfare party. Its Members are proud of welfare spending going up and up. Just a few hours ago, at the Dispatch Box, the Prime Minister criticised our party’s plan to save £36 billion because it will hit incomes during a cost of living crisis. The system of benefits and personal independence payments is not intended to be an income top-up. It is not even means-tested. It is there to help people with a genuine need to meet the daily cost of a disability. I am afraid that the Prime Minister’s mask has slipped if he thinks it is there to serve as an income top-up during a cost of living crisis of his own making.
Let me now deal with some of the contributions from Labour Members. The hon. Member for Wirral West (Matthew Patrick) brought up the subject of child poverty. The best way to help hard-working families tackle child poverty is to make sure that they have well-paid jobs—to get off the backs of wealth creators, get off the backs of business and reverse the harmful job tax, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove (Bradley Thomas) has asked.
Daniel Francis
The hon. Member has accepted from the Dispatch Box that the Conservatives did completely lose control of the budget, but will he also accept that, contrary to what they keep saying on the airwaves and in the House, the numbers increased more between spring 2022 and spring 2024 than they did between spring 2020 and spring 2022? Moreover, covid was not the cause; the cause was the fact that, at the back end of their Government, they lost control of the economy, they lost control of our borders, they lost control of the SEND system, and they lost control of DWP budgets.
Joe Robertson
I fundamentally disagree with the hon. Member’s claim that covid and its legacy had no effect. I think he should go back and think again about what life was like during covid and in the aftermath.
I turn now to our plan. We will not make the mistake that the Labour party made in opposition. We will not sit by and let a system become more and more unfair without doing the hard graft. As my hon. Friend the Member for Solihull West and Shirley (Dr Shastri-Hurst) pointed out, it is not fair to leave the system as it is. Our plan includes £36.1 billion of welfare savings to help get Britain working. Ensuring support for people with genuine need is at the heart of it, and we will provide £1 billion for people with lower-level mental health conditions. That is new money to help them and ensure that we can make savings of £16.5 billion by removing them from the cash handout system, giving them the therapeutic support that they need instead.
Several hon. Members rose—
Joe Robertson
My time is short, so let me finish by addressing the critics head-on: those who say that we do not understand—that we do not understand mental health, and that I do not understand what it is like to live with a neurodevelopmental disorder. Well, I do know what it is like. I have an ADHD diagnosis, but I have never been told that I cannot do something, and I have never been told that I need more help to do it. My condition was undiagnosed for 30 years. People with ADHD do not need a disabled persons railcard, they do not need a Motability car, and most of them do not need a cash payment every month to meet the cost of a disability for ADHD alone.
The Government need to stop thinking of new ways to give more people more things. Instead, we need to ensure that people have access to therapeutic community support to help them to live, learn, train, work, and get on in life. That is good for the economy, it is good for society and, most of all, it is good for the individuals involved. That is not the Labour way; it is the Conservative way.
The Minister for Employment (Andrew Western)
Given that time is short, I hope that my hon. Friends will forgive me for not being able to respond at length and reflect on the excellent contributions that we have heard. However, I want to thank my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Alex McIntyre)—whom, of course, I will meet, as he requested—and my hon. Friends the Members for Wirral West (Matthew Patrick), for Ealing Southall (Deirdre Costigan), for Bexleyheath and Crayford (Daniel Francis), for Croydon East (Natasha Irons), for Banbury (Sean Woodcock), for Milton Keynes North (Chris Curtis) and for Glenrothes and Mid Fife (Richard Baker) for their passionate speeches. In particular, I want to highlight the contribution of my hon. Friend the Member for Gedling (Michael Payne), whose demolition job on the Opposition’s proposals was truly something to behold.
In her opening speech, the shadow Secretary of State suggested that it was a little early for the panto season. However, people could be forgiven for their confusion, given that the Tories have rushed out their Christmas wish list of cuts somewhat early this year. Before turning to those particular proposals, however, I want to comment on some of the other points made by the shadow Secretary of State.
We agree that the number of unemployed young people is unacceptable. The number of young people not in education, employment or training was, of course, up by 250,000 in their final three years in office. We commissioned the Milburn review, the youth guarantee and the youth jobs grant because we are determined to right their wrong.
The hon. Lady said that reforming welfare is not cruel. Again, I agree with her, but the Conservatives’ plans are not welfare reform; they are cruel cuts. She said that we cancelled their reforms, but it is worth remembering that their 2023 consultation on reforming the work capability assessment was ruled unlawful.
Let us turn to some of the specific proposals in the plans that the hon. Lady spoke to, which would push hundreds of thousands of children into poverty. Half a million young people would be impacted by the Conservatives’ proposal to reinstate the two-child limit, with well over half the children affected in families that are in work. The Child Poverty Action Group has said that the Tories’ measures, including the reinstatement of the two-child limit, would cause
“the biggest overnight increase in child poverty since records began.”
It is absolutely shameful.
The Conservatives’ changes to housing benefit would exacerbate homelessness and add costs. They have proposed to reduce local housing allowance to the 10th percentile of local rent, instead of the current 30th percentile. Expert organisations have said that this would dramatically increase homelessness, as well as displacing costs to local authorities, the NHS and other public services. The director of the Chartered Institute of Housing says:
“At a time when record numbers of households are already struggling with housing costs, this would almost certainly increase financial hardship and homelessness. Any short-term savings to the welfare bill could quickly be outweighed by higher costs to councils, the NHS and other public services”.
Lincoln Jopp (Spelthorne) (Con)
I am grateful to the Minister for giving way on welfare bill savings. Can he confirm that the Labour party’s 10-year plan will contain detailed plans for reducing the bill?
Andrew Western
As the hon. Gentleman is aware, we have been clear that we will set out our proposals for welfare reform next year. They will be scored by the OBR in the usual way.
Turning back to the Conservatives’ proposed changes to local housing allowance, I have already quoted the Chartered Institute of Housing. I rather prefer the slightly snappier comments of the chief executive of Shelter, who said:
“Making more families homeless does not save the government money.”
It is not rocket science, but it needs explaining to some Members of this House.
The Conservatives have not said what would happen to British people, including children in households that contain foreign nationals. They have not set out how a household with a foreign national and a British citizen partner would be treated. Universal credit is, of course, a household benefit. Would that household be treated as a single person claim, instead of a couple claim? Would the household lose all eligibility? What about households containing foreign national adults living with British citizen children? Would the Tories’ policy on foreign nationals hit the income and living standards of British people? From the information available to us at present, it certainly seems that that would be the case.
Let us turn to the laughably ambitious £13.7 billion that the Conservatives claim they can save by reforming disability and sickness benefit. They say that this would be achieved by introducing more detailed and holistic assessments with tighter eligibility criteria, but the current contracts, which they signed us up to, run until 2029. They say that they can deliver all this by 2030, yet those contracts include a target for face-to-face assessments of just 20%. It is undeliverable.
Of course, that is before one considers that the Conservatives’ costings are predicated on claimants’ primary condition only. The shadow Secretary of State quoted the IFS, which has been very clear that most people in the cohorts that the Conservative party hopes to take benefits away from actually have multiple conditions, and often three or four. The Tories have no idea what those people’s conditions are, so the numbers are just total fantasy. Overall, they refuse to say how many households or individuals would lose out.
The hon. Member for Ruislip, Northwood and Pinner (David Simmonds) said that the Conservatives were protecting pensioners. That is not the case, because the transition from PIP to attendance allowance that they will force on people reaching pension age could cost somebody up to £4,160 a year. That would be someone on the higher rate of PIP for both daily living and mobility moving on to the higher rate of attendance allowance, so it could in some cases be more. I suspect that the Conservatives do not know how many people would be affected, I suspect they do not have a precise figure for how much it will save, and I fully expect—now I have pointed out that they are not, in fact, protecting pensioners—that that proposal will disappear, because many of these things do not stand up to scrutiny.
The challenge with the proposals the Conservatives have put forward is that they are not worth the paper they are written on. A serious Opposition would have done their homework properly, but what do we have instead? They claim to have a plan for welfare that works, but who exactly does it work for? Not for the children plunged into poverty, not for the taxpayers who have to foot the cost, not for the pensioners who face a £4,000 cliff edge and not for the households facing homelessness. We know how punitive policies turn out: more hardship, less opportunity and more pressure on the welfare state. This Government will not repeat the Conservatives’ mistakes. We are fixing the broken welfare system they left in their wake, and ensuring that everyone gets the support they need so that they can fulfil their potential and truly have a better future.
Question put (Standing Order No. 31(2)), That the original words stand part of the Question.
Employers
(1 day, 6 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
18:59 - The House divided: - Ayes: 105 / Noes: 293 - Question accordingly negatived.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I inform the House that Mr Speaker has not selected the amendment.
I call the shadow Secretary of State.
Julia Lopez (Hornchurch and Upminster) (Con)
I beg to move,
That this House believes that employers are working people and therefore condemns the Government for breaking the Labour Party manifesto commitment not to increase National Insurance by increasing employers’ National Insurance contributions; and calls on the Government to halve employers’ National Insurance contributions for under-25s.
Today, we debate a simple proposition: that employers are working people. One might have assumed it a blindingly obvious proposition, but it is one that Labour contorts itself to deny. But, then, Labour is not very good at answering obvious questions, like, “What is a woman?” or “Should someone identifying as a llama be taken seriously?”—remember that one?
Yes, the “working people” definition has really been flummoxing Labour Members. For two years, they have been bending themselves into funny shapes. The right hon. Member for Bristol North West (Darren Jones) said that a working person is
“anyone that gets a payslip, basically”.
The Secretary of State for Transport said that working people were “people on modest incomes”. The Chief Secretary to the Treasury confirmed that employers are not working people. Last week, the First Secretary cleared it all up by saying that working people
“do not have savings…and…rely on good public services.”—[Official Report, 4 November 2026; Vol. 792, c. 910.]
That might explain why the Budget hiked taxes on savers. It is a Cirque du Soleil of mental gymnastics—but why? Because in 2024 Labour decided, albeit briefly, that it would rather get elected to govern the country than continue its audition to lead the student union of Islington ring road university, so it made everyone a promise in its manifesto: no tax increases for working people. It got specific: there was to be no VAT hike and no extra rates of income tax, and Labour would not increase national insurance—no way. Just months later, up shoots national insurance to the tune of £25 billion a year. Suddenly, working people across the country are asking, “What the hell happened?”.
Labour told working people, “No, no, it’s all perfectly legit—it’s an increase in national insurance for employers, not employees.” I think that is what Labour MPs might normally call gaslighting, but since it is being done to people who contribute, work themselves silly and generally want the country to succeed, their feelings are of no concern to the Government.
Graham Stuart (Beverley and Holderness) (Con)
I am afraid that I must disagree with my hon. Friend. I do not think the Labour Government were gaslighting the nation. So little is their understanding of business and their ability to read an Office for Budget Responsibility analysis that they did not realise that the nearly £27 billion hit on the nation’s economy would lead to a nearly £20 billion reduction in the money that ordinary people get in their pay packets, and that the net receipt to the Treasury would be about half that—about £10 billion. They cannot add up. Perhaps my hon. Friend needs to acknowledge that they have that disability.
Julia Lopez
I ask for my right hon. Friend’s forgiveness. I buy into his theory more than mine; I have overestimated the Government’s capabilities.
The Conservatives’ motion says that the House believes that employers are working people, and that increasing national insurance broke Labour’s manifesto. If this was just a debate about semantics, maybe we could all move on, but the 2024 Budget has cast a shadow over every employer in every postcode, driving up unemployment and pushing up costs for everyone. It is time to start unravelling that damage, and in particular the damage that this tax increase has done to young people.
Jonathan Davies (Mid Derbyshire) (Lab)
For what it is worth, I accept that employers are working people and they are an important part of our labour market and our economy. However, though I lament the increase to national insurance, it was necessary to get money back into the NHS, which was on its knees following the end of the last Government, and that was breaking the economy too.
Julia Lopez
The hon. Gentleman has no doubt been to his constituency and been denied access to pubs, salons and all the rest of it, and that has suddenly changed his mind about what constitutes “a working person”. I should ask: are his constituents seeing those better public services? Certainly, mine are not, and they wonder where all that money has gone because it has not gone on more stable public finances or better public services.
Let us start by acknowledging what it takes to be an employer. It takes someone who saved money to start a business of their own and who took a risk to expand it gradually to take on that first member of staff, then over time building a team. It takes long hours, personal sacrifice, financial peril, time away from their family.
Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)
My hon. Friend characterises a picture that might be seen in every constituency among small and medium-sized enterprises. Sometimes, people imagine business as consisting wholly of globalist corporate plutocrats, but the backbone of our economy is made up of those small and medium-sized firms of exactly the kind that she describes. On the issue of public services, why does the Labour party not focus on productivity? It is not wholly about what we spend; it is what we get for what we spend.
Julia Lopez
I agree with what my right hon. Friend says. That characterisation of employers is why Labour gets itself into such problems in the first place. He talks about the issues relating to national insurance and public services. The NHS also has to pay a higher national insurance bill because of the changes that the Labour Government have made, and that has caused all kinds of challenges across the public sector.
Dr Luke Evans (Hinckley and Bosworth) (Con)
My hon. Friend is exactly right. One of the biggest problems when national insurance went up was that places such as hospices, pharmacies and care homes were not excluded. It is one thing to say that we are putting more money in, but all that money and more was taken elsewhere to pay for the staffing. Is that not part of the problem?
Julia Lopez
It is absolutely part of the problem. Labour did not think that through, and I have an example of that same phenomenon with the hospice in my constituency, as well as with a number of public sector organisations and charities.
Robbie Moore (Keighley and Ilkley) (Con)
To build on that point, the same applies to the education setting. I met some of my headteachers just last week. Despite employer national insurance going up, central Government grant covers only about 70% of the cost, so the additional 30% must come out of the existing school budget. That has led to teaching assistants being let go and made redundant in my constituency. Does my hon. Friend not agree that that detrimental increase in tax has hit everybody across every constituency?
Julia Lopez
I completely agree with my hon. Friend. It has been seen in my constituency and across Whitehall. It is an absolute dog’s dinner of a policy that has created problems for not just the private sector but the public sector.
Gareth Snell (Stoke-on-Trent Central) (Lab/Co-op)
The shadow Minister makes a point about the increases to national insurance—absolutely fine; that is a political point that she is entitled to make. Will she tell me, using the exact same logic that she has applied to the criticism of this levy, why in 2021 she voted for the hypothecated health and social care levy, which was a 1.25% increase on national insurance for both employees and employers? Why was that an acceptable increase, but this was not?
Julia Lopez
That was a policy that was put forward. My right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond and Northallerton (Rishi Sunak) decided to change it because the economy was in a challenging state after the pandemic and we needed to think again about whether it was the right thing to put that pressure on employers, so we went back on that policy.
To return to what employers have been going through, they have the ongoing stress and responsibility of employing people and wanting so desperately to continue to provide opportunity for them. They have to think about the other families who are relying on them as small business founders who are pushing to provide a community with a great service and a happy experience. They are pub landlords, builders, restaurateurs, service firms, salon owners, café owners, shop owners. Work, work, work, work, work.
Employers are not just working people; they are uber-taxpayers. They made it through covid, they made it through an energy crisis, but many are now saying that they cannot make it through Labour. When Labour broke its manifesto commitment in its first Budget by increasing national insurance, it did so in a highly destructive way. Not only did it increase the rate, but it lowered the point at which employers start paying NI on an employee’s salary. Lowering that threshold hit part-time, entry-level and lower-wage jobs the hardest, making employees so much more expensive to retain. I do not know about you, Madam Deputy Speaker, but suddenly, countless businesses in my constituency started sounding the alarm, especially those employing people who need flexible, part-time hours because of caring responsibilities.
Alison Griffiths (Bognor Regis and Littlehampton) (Con)
I thank the shadow Minister for highlighting the impact on part-time workers. My constituency is a very seasonal area on the coast, but we also have students and OAPs, all of whom want part-time work, yet under this Government they are finding that so much harder to achieve.
Julia Lopez
My hon. Friend is absolutely right to highlight that challenge in seasonal working, which creates an extra burden for employers, many of whom have to work to fill the shifts they would otherwise have used temporary staff for, creating enormous pressure.
People are writing to me in despair because their adult child simply cannot get a first break in the workplace, and it is not for want of trying. Businesses warned the Government that this would happen. The hospitality, retail and care sectors all raised the alarm about the impact of higher employer national insurance. What was Labour’s response? The unemployment Act, which makes it riskier to employ people as well as more expensive. The national insurance increase came into effect in April 2025. By April this year, there were 210,000 fewer payrolled employees than a year earlier. There are now 1 million young people not in education, employment or training, and the Government are in denial about the reasons why.
Dave Doogan (Angus and Perthshire Glens) (SNP)
The shadow Minister talks about businesses having warned the Labour Government about the impact that Labour’s jobs tax was going to have. Does she, like me, think it is inconceivable that Treasury officials would not similarly have advised the Government that this would be a consequence of the jobs tax? Is it not particularly pernicious of Labour to have put the biggest barricade in front of younger workers, possibly accessing their first job in hospitality, which will have a lifelong damaging effect on their careers?
Julia Lopez
The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to point that out. It is inconceivable that the Government would not have been told about the impact that this policy was likely to have.
Labour likes to point out that employers do not pay national insurance on workers under 21, but that misses the point. Employers are making decisions about their entire workforce, and when the cost of employing people rises and the risks associated with taking on a new starter increase, the first opportunity to disappear is the one that will no longer be created. Rather than take on an extra employee at junior level, employers are squeezing the staffing resource they have, but they are shedding younger workers, too. By 2027, employing a full-time minimum wage worker over the age of 21 will cost a business 20% more than it did when Labour entered office. For an 18 to 20-year-old, it is 31%.
Labour knows that there is a problem, but rather than tackle it at source, it offers up the youth guarantee, a bung to employers to take on a young person for six months. How about making it cheaper and easier to employ that young person in the first place? Soon we will get details of an unlimited youth mobility scheme with the EU to add to this mix, which will see young Britons competing for available work with peers from 27 other nations.
The cost of all this must be absorbed somewhere. Higher national insurance, soaring energy bills and a growing burden of regulation all feed through into the price of doing business and, ultimately, the price we all pay. The weekly shop costs more, a meal out costs more, getting your hair done costs more, activities with the kids cost more, as does going away for a few days. This is just one of the reasons that household finances are going backwards. Whether Labour is talking about employer national insurance or employee national insurance, everybody pays at the end of the day.
We Conservatives want more working people, because work is dignity, contribution, resilience and confidence, and we want that opportunity for as many young people as possible. We want to end the waste of a generation unable to showcase its talents, and we want to reduce the cost on a generation of workers that can bear no more tax on its shoulders. That means returning to some of the policies that are driving this destruction. Not only would we repeal the job-destroying provisions of the unemployment Act; we Conservatives would halve employer national insurance for under-25s. Our policy would permanently reduce the cost of employing young people and give businesses a real incentive to take them on. For an employer, it would be a saving of around £1,500.
This is part of a wider plan to tackle Labour’s youth jobs emergency. Our “Get to Work” scheme would stop young people leaving education and drifting straight on to welfare. It would create 100,000 new apprenticeships, cut red tape to save the Saturday job and reduce high street business rates to support the businesses that give young people their first step on the jobs ladder—a policy that would benefit not 70,000 high street businesses, as Labour’s policy would, but 250,000.
Aside from old prejudices about employers as the oppressors of workers, the reason that Labour contorts itself on the definition of working people is that it knows it has taxed them silly. In doing so, it has not just broken its manifesto commitment but completely undermined what Keir Starmer and his sparkling new Chancellor used to say was Labour’s No. 1 priority: growth. The consequences are there for all to see in the unemployment figures and the living despair of young people unable to secure a good job.
Sir John Hayes
My hon. Friend is making a fundamental point about the structural effects of this policy: of course, it affects profitability year by year, but it also undermines the capacity of businesses to reinvest and ensure structurally that they are fit for the future. A butcher in my constituency, Andrew Parsons of Bennetts Butchers, is closing the shop in a couple of weeks after more than 100 years of trading, because, as a result of the costs lumped on him by successive Governments but particularly by this one, he does not have the money to reinvest.
Julia Lopez
My right hon. Friend tells us a terrible story that is unfortunately being played out in constituencies across this country. People are having their buffer eroded and then they are simply not able to invest in their businesses in the way that they would have hoped. It was all so predictable.
Let me close by reading out what I said to my constituents immediately after the 2024 Budget:
“Labour said in the election they did not need to hike taxes to pay for their plans, beyond those they had already announced. We now know this was not true—they have gone on a borrowing and spending spree that makes a mockery of the idea that they are concerned about the state of public finances they inherited.
Many of the taxes on ordinary working people have been disguised by heaping pain on business. Labour may think it’s clever politics. But the result will be job losses, higher prices and closures…this approach is all wrong, warping the incentive structure in our economy. It won’t work and as they come back for more taxes, the number of people willing to take the risk of starting a business or save for their families will simply get smaller and smaller.”
We are now living that future. Have these tax rises given us robust public finances? Have they delivered better public services? Do people feel better off? On all counts, the answer is no, yet this new Prime Minister believes that the solution to the resulting welfare crisis is to give Labour more taxes to spend. It does not work. Employers are the funders of services, the drivers of growth and the engines of opportunity. Many are not just working people themselves but working people on steroids, and they are fed up of being the cash machine for Labour’s faux benevolence. Their requests are simple: give us the chance to grow our businesses and build a future pipeline of young people to whom one day we might well pass our life’s work. It is time for this Government to start undoing the damage they have wreaked and halve the jobs tax on the young people whose aspirations Labour is burying right now.
The Financial Secretary to the Treasury and Paymaster General (James Murray)
The Budget of two weeks ago was a Budget to steer Britain through the economic storms we are facing. It provided breathing space now on the cost of living and the cost of business with fresh hope for the future, and it was built on fiscal discipline, which underwrites every promise this Government make. When the Chancellor stood at this Dispatch Box two weeks ago, he faced a choice: he could have followed the route of the Conservatives—sacrifice stability, borrow irresponsibly and make unfunded promises straight out of Liz Truss’s playbook—but instead he chose a responsible route to keep the public finances under control, protect working people, back businesses and invest in Britain’s future.
James Murray
Working people are those millions of people across the country who put so much in every day but have not been getting back what they deserve. Those are the people this Government are backing, and that is why, at this Budget, the Chancellor chose to prioritise breathing space for families and businesses, including on the cost of energy. He set out how we will tackle the long-term challenges facing our country. For families, that will mean a £100 household energy payment to support 20 million households—80% of households in England—along with an extension of the VAT cut for electricity bills and a further extension to the fuel duty freeze.
Dr Neil Hudson (Epping Forest) (Con)
I am grateful for the Minister giving way—I have a huge amount of respect for him. He is always the brave Minister who has to pad up and go out to bat to defend the indefensible, such as the jobs tax, the family farm tax or the family business tax. I wonder if the Minister could enlighten me: if there is a pub landlord hiring local people and serving beer to customers—who may or may not own black Labradors—are they a working person?
James Murray
Of course they are. If the hon. Member wants to talk about defending the indefensible, I wonder how he ever stands up in this place to talk about the previous Conservative Government because that must be an insurmountable challenge. I hope that he would welcome what the Chancellor announced at the Budget to give breathing space to businesses because it will mean that more than 70,000 small retail, hospitality and leisure properties are taken out of paying business rates altogether, that pubs will have a 20% cut in their business rates from next April and that business rates for retail, hospitality and leisure premises of all sizes will either fall or be frozen in real terms. In addition to business rates, many firms will benefit from our freeze on red diesel duty and from the reduction in energy bills by up to 25% for more than 10,000 eligible businesses from next April through the British industrial competitiveness scheme. That is what breathing space for businesses looks like, alongside the breathing space for families.
As I said earlier, the bedrock of our approach—our lodestar—to the public finances is fiscal discipline. That is why the Budget set out how we will fully fund all new policy and breathing space measures for families and businesses. In deciding his approach, the Chancellor rejected broad-based tax rises, instead taking decisions about tax changes that are fair, proportionate and targeted. That included having banks help pay for the energy help for households this winter through a temporary increase to the bank surcharge and an increase in machine games duty for higher-stakes machines to help fund cuts for business rates.
Graham Stuart
Could the Minister confirm that, under the current regulatory regime, the £1.5 billion that will be taken over 15 months in this doubled bank tax could be lent out to a maximum of £25 billion? There is a risk that having withdrawn £1.5 billion from the banks’ equity, £25 billion—it is the maximum—in lending to the UK businesses we are talking about could be lost?
James Murray
I am sure the right hon. Gentleman will have been interested in our measures in the Budget for the British Business Bank, for instance, to increase access to finance, particularly for many of those businesses that are trying to scale up and increase. But I come back to this central point—I know what his position will be because he is a loyal member of the Opposition Benches and will follow what the Leader of the Opposition said on Budget day itself—which is that the Conservative party does not support our decision to require banks to pay a little more for a temporary period of time to fund household support across the country. We know that banks are coming from a strong position. It is a temporary increase. It is one that we believe is fair, targeted and proportionate. We are asking banks—requiring banks—to pay that extra amount, and they are therefore contributing towards the important support for households. What I think is sad about this debate is that the Opposition do not support that breathing space for households. I thought the right hon. Gentleman was loyal to his party leader, but if he would like to break ranks and intervene on me again to confirm that he supports our £100 household energy payment, that would be helpful.
Graham Stuart
The slavish loyalty of the Minister has already been remarked upon, along with the courage that goes with defending the indefensible quite as often as he has done—always with wit and good humour. Could he address this particular point? The truth is that banks are a popular target to hit with the public and with Labour Members, but if there is actually less money to go to the pubs, restaurants and small businesses in my constituency and elsewhere, can he not accept that that multiple should give people pause for thought before they go for the easy, popular target and take it out of the big, fat, rich banks, if it turns out the small business in trouble will actually lose the credit it desperately needs?
James Murray
I was listening carefully to the right hon. Gentleman, as I always do whenever he speaks in this Chamber, and I did not hear a response to the question I asked of him, which is whether he supports the household energy payment, which the Leader of the Opposition so clearly opposes. I invited him to intervene to clarify his position given there seems to be some confusion on the Opposition Benches around the household energy payment and whether they support it or not. I would have thought that given the Leader of the Opposition was so clear in not supporting the household energy payment, the hon. Gentleman—
James Murray
I would have thought that the right hon. Gentleman—excuse me—would have no difficulty in rowing in behind her, but he seems to be struggling with that somewhat, so I will make some progress.
I was speaking about the fiscal discipline that underwrites everything we are doing as a Government. Through the approach that we took in the Budget, we have maintained our fiscal rules while making no changes to rates of income tax or national insurance on income from employment or self-employment, or to the rate of national insurance that employers pay on wages or salaries for their staff.
Nigel Huddleston (Droitwich and Evesham) (Con)
The Minister is giving us lots of opportunity to intervene on him, and we are grateful for that. We keep hearing about the “difficult decisions” that Ministers are making to increase taxes. I do not think that is a difficult decision; it is a very easy decision to make—the laziest decision for a Government. I noticed that his list did not include the new tax on tourism. Will he please explain how Labour believes that we can help an industry by taxing it more?
James Murray
As the hon. Gentleman may know, the overnight visitor levy is a power that we are giving to strategic authorities across the country. It will be a decision for mayors or foundational strategic authorities to take about whether to introduce that levy, and if they do so, at what percentage to introduce it. Any proceeds will be reinvested in the local visitor economy and other infrastructure in the local area, and will support that area to get more visitors in future, thereby supporting economic growth—I hope that is something the hon. Gentleman would support.
Let me turn directly to the role of employers in our country, given the title of the motion. As I said in response to an earlier intervention, employers are working people and they are the backbone of our economy. As I also said, that is why the Budget gives businesses breathing space, with 70,000 retail, hospitality and leisure properties taken out of business rates altogether, and bills for others cut or frozen in real terms.
Rebecca Smith (South West Devon) (Con)
I thank the right hon. Member for giving way yet again. He is helpfully listing things from the Budget that are supposed to help businesses, but I wonder whether he has come across anyone in his constituency, or in his work at the Treasury who, like businesses I am aware of, have seen the standing charge for their business electricity double. We are talking four figures in the first place, so that is a significant increase. In one case a business invested in solar panels, which the Government would no doubt welcome, but ultimately the investment that it made will be completely wiped out by increased standing charges. Will the Minister address that specific point?
James Murray
I thank the hon. Lady for mentioning energy bills, because as MPs and Ministers we all recognise that energy costs are one of the primary concerns for households and businesses across the country. In the Budget two weeks ago, we offered breathing space for families and businesses, including with energy bills. Crucially, we also set out the work we will be doing in the years ahead to get those energy bills down for good, and ensure that we can invest in home-grown, renewable cleaner sources of energy, break the link between electricity and gas prices, and remove standing charges from gas bills and then electricity bills. All that is about reforming the way the energy market works, because while breathing space is what households and businesses need now, we know that longer-term reform is needed over time.
I was explaining the breathing space for businesses, and I mentioned the cuts to business rates announced in the Budget. I remind hon. Members that we are backing people who want to start and grow businesses by cutting red tape and unlocking billions of pounds of investment. We also introduced our new founders’ relief for founders of high-growth companies, and a new young entrepreneurs allowance to cover a year of living costs for young founders while they bring ideas alive. Employers and businesses drive growth, offer job opportunities and create wealth across our country.
Helen Maguire (Epsom and Ewell) (LD)
I am sure the Minister will agree that the Conservatives left the high street on life support, but unfortunately I feel that Labour has failed to resuscitate it. Epsom and Ewell has a coffee shop called Brew Forty Two. The staff work really hard, but rising costs mean it is difficult to employ young people, and the Saturday job is pretty much now extinct. Does the Minister agree that we need to reinstate lower national insurance contributions?
James Murray
I will come to that later in my remarks. Employers do not pay national insurance contributions for under-21s, because of the relief that already exists, or for apprentices under the age of 25. That goes some way towards supporting the objective that the hon. Lady mentions, which is to ensure that employers are supporting young people into work. I agree with her comments about the state in which the Conservatives left high streets across the country, having not done what was necessary to support them over 14 years.
Businesses across the country are the ones who drive economic growth, and every employer across the country knows the importance of fiscal discipline. It is crucial in enabling them to succeed, just as it is the crucial bedrock of economic stability for the country and the foundation that we need to support confidence and long-term growth.
James Murray
I will give way one more time, then I will make a bit of progress.
Sir John Hayes
The Minister is being immensely generous in taking interventions. Employers in my constituency include many farmers and growers and related food firms and hauliers, yet much of the land in my constituency is threatened with immense solar developments, which will take that land out of production. That threatens the country’s food security, and we risk making energy security the enemy of food security. That is bound to undermine our economy in the long term, as we import more and more of what we need to feed the nation. Will he take a look at that, discuss it with colleagues across Government and see how we can reverse that trend? It puts our national economic resilience at risk.
James Murray
While I agree with the right hon. Gentleman drawing attention to the importance of food security as part of our national security, he and I take a different approach to energy security. The reforms that we are implementing as a Government, including through investment in home-grown, independent sources of energy to increase our energy security and make us more independent from fossil fuel prices around the world, are crucial to bringing bills down over time and ensuring greater energy independence and energy security. That is what the Government are doing, and that is how we see ourselves responding to one of the greatest pressures that many households and businesses face: the immediate and long-term costs of energy.
I was talking about employers recognising the importance of fiscal discipline in their own businesses, just as the Government recognise the importance of fiscal discipline for the country. We know that this Government inherited a crisis in our public services, our public finances and the cost of living. NHS waiting lists were at record levels, children worked in portacabins as school roofs crumbled, and rivers were filled with polluted waste. Billions of pounds of spending commitments had not been funded or even properly disclosed to the Office for Budget Responsibility. Faced with that reality, any responsible Government would have to act. We kept our manifesto commitment to working people not to increase their income tax, their national insurance or VAT, and we went further by freezing fuel duty and raising the national minimum wage.
Patrick Spencer (Central Suffolk and North Ipswich) (Con)
Will the Minister give way?
James Murray
I will make some progress, as I have taken a few interventions. Maybe I will address the hon. Gentleman’s point in a moment.
After taking office, we had to take decisions on tax, welfare and spending to fix the public finances and repair our broken public services. It was to restore stability in the public finances and to get our NHS and other essential services back on their feet that we increased national insurance contributions from employers. In making that change, we also more than doubled the employment allowance from £5,000 to £10,500 so that around 900,000 employers—around 40% of employers—have no employer national insurance liability at all.
As I mentioned earlier in response to the hon. Member for Epsom and Ewell (Helen Maguire), we maintained reliefs for those employing younger workers, with businesses able to claim employer national insurance contribution reliefs, including for those aged under 21 and apprentices under the age of 25. That means that employers pay no employer national insurance contributions for employees under the age of 21 or apprentices under the age of 25 on earnings up to £50,270, which saves up to £6,750 a year for each eligible employee.
We know that the decision to increase employer national insurance contributions had an impact on businesses, but we recognise that because of that choice and others, we have been able to put the NHS back on its feet, with waiting lists down by more than 250,000 since the Government came into power. As well as getting the NHS back on its feet, our fiscal rules and the discipline of meeting them mean that we are boosting investment in Britain’s future—the investment that families and businesses want and need. Across this Parliament, we will invest an additional £120 billion in Britain’s roads, rail, energy and other infrastructure, which is so important for driving growth, and last year we delivered the highest number of affordable homes in a decade.
John Slinger (Rugby) (Lab)
Does my right hon. Friend agree that this Government’s investment in our infrastructure and our NHS, which is significantly higher than the risible amount of investment delivered under the previous Government, is pro-business and pro-economic growth, and that that is why the Budget measures will help our country and help businesses across this land?
James Murray
My hon. Friend is absolutely right that businesses want to make sure that the population—their employees or future employees—are healthy, are able to get to work and are able to access the support they need to get a job. That is as important for businesses as it is for the people themselves, and of course businesses want to see the investment in infrastructure that our adherence to our fiscal rules enables. That investment in rail, road and energy is so important to businesses, as it is to families across the country.
In their motion, the Conservatives propose halving employer national insurance contributions for under-25s. Apart from a brief mention in the shadow Secretary of State’s speech, they appear to have forgotten that employers already pay no employer national insurance on any earnings up to £50,270 for every employee under 21, and for all apprentices under 25. However, the bigger problem—one that goes to the very heart of why the Conservatives failed in government and why it is clear that they have learned nothing—is that they are very good at announcing tax cuts, yet always entirely fail to credibly say how they would pay for them. If they want a reduction in employer national insurance, what is the cost? Where does the money come from? Is it from higher borrowing, higher taxes on someone else or cuts to the NHS and other public services that working people rely on?
Just look at the Conservatives’ announcements on tax more widely. They have promised billions of pounds-worth of unfunded and poorly targeted tax cuts for the very wealthiest—exactly the same irresponsibility that led to the disastrous Liz Truss mini-Budget that crashed the economy and sent mortgages skyrocketing. That is the difference between us as a responsible Government and them as a discredited Opposition.
Dave Doogan
There is a constant tension in that those who criticise Government fiscal policy must say where they would get the money from. On that basis, could the Minister advise the House what progress the Government have made over the past two years on closing the tax gap, and say what size it currently is?
James Murray
If the hon. Gentleman wants to have a conversation about the tax gap, I am very happy to pick that up. When we came into office in 2024, one of our first priorities was to close the tax gap before asking for any further tax contributions from any other sources. That was an essential part of our wider plan to restore public services and the public finances and to create the conditions for economic growth. That work continues, and I am very pleased to be playing a role in the Treasury, continuing that work to close the tax gap and modernise the service His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs provides, so that more people pay the right tax first time and can pay it automatically without mistakes or errors creeping into the system.
Because of the decisions we have taken as a Government—including closing the tax gap, as the hon. Member for Angus and Perthshire Glens (Dave Doogan) mentioned— we are providing certainty and stability. Meanwhile, the Conservative party cannot resist playing games with the public finances, irrespective of the fact that whenever it has done so in the past, it is working people who have suffered the most. Britain is a country of entrepreneurs, shopkeepers, manufacturers, publicans, start-ups, family firms and growing businesses, and I am proud of the people across our country who take on risk and put in every hour they can to start and grow businesses. Above all, they need—and they have—a Government who are prepared to do the hard work of building a stable economy in which businesses can prosper. Employers need stability in order to plan for the future, create good jobs, invest and innovate, and providing that foundation is our responsibility as a Government. That is why, in the face of global storms, fiscal discipline will always underwrite every promise this Government make. The opposite is true of the Conservative party.
Government is about making choices, not pretending that choices do not exist. We in this Government are choosing to back working people. We are choosing to back the employers who create jobs. We are choosing to back young people into work, and we will always choose, with fiscal discipline as our lodestar, to maintain the economic stability on which our success as a country depends. For all those reasons, I urge Members to reject the motion.
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
I call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson.
Daisy Cooper (St Albans) (LD)
It has been a tough decade for businesses. It all started with Brexit, which unleashed uncertainty, red tape and form-filling, pushing up prices for all of us. Following that was the covid pandemic. Notwithstanding the furlough scheme, it unleashed on business a boom and bust cycle of lockdowns and opening back up, all because the then Conservative Government did not buy an off-the-shelf app that might have prevented that boom and bust cycle by tracking the impact.
Stuart Andrew (Daventry) (Con)
I recall that when I was sat on the Government Benches, the Liberal Democrats were calling for more stringent measures.
Daisy Cooper
The right hon. Gentleman will perhaps remember more correctly that during that time we called for a lockdown initially, but the public had already decided to go into lockdown. He will also remember that the then Prime Minister announced that pubs, high streets and a whole load of businesses should be closing down, without covering their insurance. The right hon. Gentleman will remember that.
Following covid, we had the mini-Budget, which I am sure the Conservatives will deny, too. The mini-Budget was incredibly painful and unleashed huge panic in the financial markets. It drove up the cost of living and the cost of commercial loans. On top of all that, we then had two anti-growth Budgets from the Labour Government that have pushed up costs on businesses. For many, it is too much to bear. Small businesses, the backbone of our high streets and our communities, have borne the brunt. It is the cumulative impact that small businesses have expressed concern about. They tell me that if it had been just one tax, they might just have been able to manage it, but they have had the national insurance contributions rise, the business rates changes and the Employment Rights Act 2025, which got the balance wrong between protections for workers and the burden on business. Businesses that have put in blood, sweat and tears and financial investment are now struggling and do not know whether they can survive.
Dave Doogan
The hon. Lady has given a comprehensive list of the impediments that this Government have put the way of business in just 24 months, but I hope she will not forget that we have the highest commercial energy prices anywhere in the developed world under this Labour Government. Those are similarly threatening to put businesses under.
Daisy Cooper
The hon. Gentleman is right to raise the fact that we have some of the highest energy costs for business. We have called on the Government to extend their scheme for energy-intensive businesses. We have made it clear that we want to see further action on decoupling the link between gas and electricity. I have had meetings with Ofgem about making sure that there is better regulation for small businesses, particularly when they are looking to brokers for their energy deals. There needs to be far more action, not just for energy-intensive businesses, but for the small businesses on our high streets.
As I was saying, the impact on businesses of all these higher taxes has exacerbated the youth unemployment problem. That is why we now see vacancies at a five-year low. It is wrong to blame young people for not applying for or getting jobs when there simply are not jobs for them to apply for. That is why we Liberal Democrats have talked about growing our economy and pulling the biggest single growth lever that we can by joining the single market, which would reduce costs for businesses.
Dr Luke Evans
Have the Liberal Democrats done any modelling of what the impact would be on those young people who are not employed if we rejoined the European Union and had free movement or if we had a youth mobility approach and there was an influx of young people into this country?
Daisy Cooper
If there are no jobs in the UK, there will not be people coming to the UK to take jobs that do not exist. If we could join the single market, it would reduce red tape, reduce form-filling, and make it cheaper for businesses in the UK to grow. They would create more jobs, and there would be more jobs for young people. I simply cannot believe that the Conservative party, despite all the evidence and all the studies, will still not accept that having a stronger relationship with Europe is the single biggest way in which we can grow our economy—and it is only if we grow our economy that we can cut taxes and cut bills. For as long as the Conservatives refuse to acknowledge the damage of their Brexit deal, they will remain an out-of-touch, anti-growth, anti-business party.
Gareth Snell
The hon. Lady has made the argument here eloquently, many times, about joining the single market and the customs union. However, on 1 April 2019, the House came within three votes of a Brexit deal that would have allowed the retention of membership of the customs union. I voted for it, and others who were Labour Members at the time voted for it. Six Liberal Democrats, including the current leader of the hon. Lady’s party, voted against it. They walked into the Lobby with the Conservatives—with those of the right—to veto a Brexit deal that included membership of the customs union. Why did they do that?
Daisy Cooper
I will not apologise for the fact that we fought tooth and nail—we were the only large party that fought tooth and nail—to stop the damage of the Brexit deal in any shape or form.
Dave Doogan
In the last Parliament, the SNP was a substantially bigger party than the Liberal Democrats, and we fought tooth and nail to maintain membership of the EU as well. I am sure the hon. Lady will acknowledge that.
Daisy Cooper
I do indeed acknowledge that. It was a slip of the tongue. Many parties were fighting tooth and nail to stop the damage of the Conservatives’ botched Brexit deal. I hope very much that at the EU summit, the Labour Government will move a great deal further than the timid approach they appear to be taking now.
Paul Holmes
Will the hon. Lady acknowledge that economic growth in Europe is lower than the economic growth in this country? Perhaps she could also tell the House how much her party, under its policy proposal, would be willing to pay to join the single market. Would that not take money out of the economy that we could be using to increase growth domestically?
Daisy Cooper
The hon. Gentleman will, I hope, accept that growth in one country is not equivalent to growth in another country. When we tear down barriers between countries, we increase growth. Plenty of modelling has been done by the national economic social research unit in America, and by other bodies in this country. I am not sure, but I believe it is PwC that has talked about the amount of growth we would gain from the single market. We believe that joining the single market and the customs union would bring in about £29 billion and that the cost would probably be about £2 billion, so the growth that we would gain would massively exceed the cost of joining.
Graham Stuart
Does the hon. Lady agree that the Liberal Democrats are a singularly special party in this place, because they can believe passionately in something and then not vote for it?
Daisy Cooper
I am sure that if I had more time to speak in this debate, I could point to a number of examples of the Conservative party saying one thing and doing another. It is, of course, a party that is trying to claim, after the mini-Budget, that it is reclaiming the brand of fiscal responsibility, but even in the Conservatives’ recent spending plans there is, according to my calculation, a £33 billion hole between their funding pledges—or the things they want to fund—and the tax cuts that they want to make. It looks like Trussonomics 2.0.
Danny Kruger (East Wiltshire) (Reform)
May I bring the hon. Lady back to the point about the opportunity presented by opening up greater access to the European single market? She has cited various reports suggesting that that would be good. Is she aware of the winners of the Nobel prize for economics last year, who demonstrated that what has driven growth across the world, but particularly in the United Kingdom, has not been access to wider markets, but innovation and technology? That is about the growth that we receive from supporting businesses to develop new products and services. It is not access to global markets that does that; it is our own industry and services economy here in the UK. Will the hon. Lady please return to the original liberal principles that helped to develop the prosperity of this country in the 19th and 20th centuries, which are about low tax and low regulation?
Daisy Cooper
I have made it very clear in my speech that the single biggest lever for growth is a much better deal with Europe. I have never said that it is the only lever for growth. I absolutely believe that we need to invest in innovation, and I wish that the Government would go further in fixing the entire pipeline, from ideas and start-ups to scale-ups and commercialisation. We should be the best place in the world for a business to start up, to scale up and to stay, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman shares that vision.
I return to the motion. I was saying that the rise in national insurance contributions has exacerbated youth unemployment. We want growth with Europe; we want NICs cut; we want 100 hours of guaranteed work experience for young people before they reach the age of 18; and we want the cliff edges in universal credit tackled as well. We are pleased that the Labour Government have finally looked at putting a tax on the banks, but they will be aware that we have pointed out other ways in which they could have raised taxes on the banks—for example, through a windfall tax on unearned income, which would not deter any further investment. When it comes to our economy and supporting employers, the only long-term solution is to get growth back into our country and get Britain growing again. That is the only way that we can cut taxes and bills.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Order. To ensure that everybody can contribute, there will be a speaking limit of seven minutes for Back Benchers.
Dr Jeevun Sandher (Loughborough) (Lab)
I want to start a bit differently today, if I may. My parents were employers; they were business people. They employed me in what was probably my first job. As the son of immigrants, I did not get a choice as to whether I took up that employment. I am not quite sure if I was paid the minimum wage, but working taught me something. It taught me what it meant to earn money; it taught me the pride in work; and it taught me what I got at the end of it. I will never forget working for a week, and then buying a turquoise iPod Mini. I loved that iPod, partly because I was really hip and cool, of course—
Dr Sandher
Stop it! The hon. Member is too kind.
I had a sense of pride, because I knew that I had earned that iPod; it was the fruits of my labour. When I was growing up in the ’90s and ’00s, I saw business people doing well, partly because we were growing under a Labour Government, but also because the conditions of business worked. My parents knew that their workers had skills and were healthy, and they also knew that workers and families across the country were living good lives at that point in time. They could afford a decent life, and to spend money down the shops and on the goods that my parents were producing and selling. I saw them do well, and I saw business do well. Part of the reason why I became a member of the Labour party is that I want to see every single person do well and thrive. I saw businesses thrive, and I saw my parents’ business thrive.
I also joined the Labour party because we are the party of work—the clue is in the name. I want every single person in this country to have a good job, but we are quite far away from that, and we have been for quite a while. About 40% of people in full-time work cannot afford to raise a family, because there are not enough good jobs in this country. Post-industrial areas are still post-industrial, and they are the most deprived parts of this nation. They have not been doing well for an incredibly long time. We have to do more to create good jobs across our country.
Patrick Spencer
I could not agree more. We should do everything to create jobs. Surely the hon. Member is about to suggest that we cut taxes on businesses. That will create jobs.
Dr Sandher
I want to start there. I disagree with the Conservatives’ motion. It effectively says that if we cut national insurance contributions, good jobs will follow. The first thing to note is that, yes, we did raise national insurance contributions in our first Budget, and there are a million more people in work today. The second thing to note is that the Conservatives’ mistaken moral aims would lead to poorer material ends. They are googling; they are finding out the difference between the pay-as-you-earn measure of employment and the Office for National Statistics measure of employment.
There is something else on which I disagree with the Conservatives. I read the document entitled “The Right Way”, which they produced before their conference. It effectively said that if the Government just step away and create the right conditions, businesses will create the prosperity and good jobs that we need. We have seen that this has not worked. Post-industrial areas are still post-industrial. We saw the Government step away in the 1980s, and we saw those areas remain poor over time. In places like Middlesbrough, the employment rate is 20 percentage points lower than the national average. For non-graduate men, the employment rate is down by about 20 percentage points, too.
Douglas Lumsden (Aberdeen South) (Con)
The hon. Member is talking about deindustrialisation; it is happening right now in my constituency, because we are turning our back on the oil and gas industry. We are not approving Rosebank, when we should. It is an absolute disgrace that the Labour Government are killing off jobs right across north-east Scotland.
Dr Sandher
I think about 90% of jobs in the oil and gas industry have disappeared over the past 20 or 30 years, including 150,000 in Aberdeen. That is basically because the North sea is a declining basin; we cannot change geological facts. As the hon. Member will know, the Rosebank decision is a quasi-judicial one that will be made by the Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero.
I come back to the fact that in the 1980s, the Conservatives said, “If you just cut taxes, good times will follow,” but they did not follow for huge numbers of people and huge areas of this country. We also see the legacy of the Conservative Governments from 2010 to 2024: in the past few years, there have been 250,000 more young people not in education, employment or training; areas have not recovered; and there has been the longest wage stagnation since Napoleon’s time.
We have seen the outcomes of the Conservatives’ philosophy. They had 14 years in government, and it was not a success. We did not see good jobs across this nation, because there was not the means or materials for them, or a foundation of prosperity. There were not the skills; the number of apprenticeship starts for young people was down by a third. The population was not healthy; we had the longest waiting lists on record. There was not enough transport infrastructure—ours was the worst in western Europe—and energy costs were the highest in the G7. That was the legacy of your Government, because the only thing Conservative Members have ever believed—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Order. I am not participating in this debate, but presiding over it, so “you” and “your” are not needed.
Dr Sandher
I will give way, because the right hon. Member has been very patient.
Graham Stuart
. The hon. Member is being most generous in giving way. He is a fair-minded man, so, on outcomes, I am slightly surprised that he picks this figure of 1 million more people in work; the numbers from His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs show that the payroll has reduced by 165,000 people since July 2024, and that the number of unemployed people has gone up by 225,000. In fairness, would he make sure that he does not just pick the one statistic that he thinks helps his argument?
Dr Sandher
I choose to use the labour force survey statistic because it includes both the self-employed and those who are low-paid and do not appear in the PAYE figures. I pick that figure because it is more comprehensive, and I believe it is more correct, as it includes everybody in work.
I want to briefly pick up the point about unemployment. The right hon. Member is right to say that both employment and unemployment have increased, but that in part is good news; it is because those who were economically inactive are now seeking work, so they are now in the category of “unemployed”, rather than “inactive”. We have more people in work, and more people looking for work.
Our argument is that, for businesses to create prosperity, they need not just lower taxes—I take the Opposition’s point on that—but the sales and the foundations to create prosperity. They need a healthy workforce. That is why we are investing in the NHS and waiting lists are falling. They need good skills, which is why the number of apprenticeship starts in this country is such a focus for this Government. They also need lower energy costs, which means providing home-grown, cheaper, cleaner energy. Those things help employers produce more in this country, and help businesses hire more people.
Dr Luke Evans
I am very grateful to my Leicestershire colleague for giving way. Could he point to where in the Budget Loughborough cafés or restaurants will get specific support with their energy? The British industrial competitiveness scheme is only for manufacturing, and all the tax levies that are coming off bills—the carbon taxes, the green levies—will not do so until 2028. I am not aware of any support specifically for cafés in Loughborough or restaurants on his high street. Am I wrong?
Dr Sandher
As the hon. Member will know, we are also freezing rates, but on a personal note, I do everything I can to support every pub in my constituency, because that is the service we Labour Members believe in.
We know that our approach, our philosophy and our moral aim leads to material prosperity because we have seen it before. We saw Attlee create collective prosperity after collective sacrifice, and Blair and Brown renew a nation after 18 years of Conservative Government. We see how our aims lead to better outcomes. Labour Members believe that our country thrives when everybody thrives. Businesses do well when everybody does well—when the young person who leaves school knows that they can get a good job in a local business; when that business can hire them, because it knows that they have the skills that it needs; and, more importantly, when the business knows that consumers can buy its goods, because we are making life affordable for all. That is how we Labour Members are creating jobs and helping business people like my mum and dad.
Priti Patel (Witham) (Con)
It is a pleasure to speak in this debate, and to listen to a range of views, but I genuinely think that Government Members should begin with an apology to employers, for a number of reasons. First of all, the Chief Secretary to the Treasury insulted them all a few weekends ago, basically saying that employers are not working people. It was a flat insult to the millions upon millions of people in family-run businesses, probably just like the parents of the hon. Member for Loughborough (Dr Sandher), who just gave a lecture on his views about employment and employability.
Fundamentally, small and medium-sized enterprises—hard-working family-run businesses—have always been the backbone of Britain and the British economy. I have a lot of time for the Minister. He is a great survivor, and he deserves some kind of accolade for his long-standing defence of his Government’s tax-grabbing, job-destroying policies, and even for his references to fiscal discipline—we can talk about that—but the Government need to wake up to the adverse impact of their economic policies for employment. We see devastating impacts on small businesses across the country and their ability to function. They are working hard and putting in long hours just to keep the lights on and manage their cash flow. The Government need to demonstrate some humility and acknowledge that right now.
Patrick Spencer
I thank my right hon. Friend for her assessment of the performance of the Government Front Benchers—I tried to intervene on the Minister. I have serious concerns; the Minister said, at the Dispatch Box, “We kept our manifesto commitment not to tax working people.” He then said that they introduced a NICs increase for employers, but in the same breath, he said, “Employers are working people.” Do you not agree with me that the Minister clearly does not understand what a business is, and that, in increasing NICs, he has increased taxes on working people and broken a manifesto promise?
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Order. Once again, “you” and “your” are not to be used when referencing colleagues.
Priti Patel
My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I do not want to insult anybody, but it is important for Members to speak on these issues if they have credible experience of them—if they have set up a business and come from a business background. I am afraid that government has become a blunt instrument now. Things are far too binary. The Government are not even thinking through the overall impact of their decisions on local businesses, and then they come to the Dispatch Box defending broken pledges. This House should spend much more time talking about our pride in the nation’s businesses. They are the wealth creators and employers who give people a hand up in life. They give people economic security.
I will speak for my great county of Essex, because I do not think it gets enough airtime in this Chamber. We are a county of entrepreneurs. Despite the damage that this job-destroying, business-bashing, tax-grabbing Labour Government are doing to our economy, we are fighting hard to survive. We have a range of amazing businesses, and I will list them, because I think the House might have experienced some of the fine produce from Essex. Wilkin and Sons in Tiptree makes the jam that is in the Tea Room. Linden Lady chocolates, made in Copford, are sold in the House of Commons shop. There is a range of Essex farmers and food manufacturers, whom we all depend on. A colleague spoke about food security; that matters. Maldon Salt, a very famous brand, comes from my constituency as well.
On the Opposition Front Bench, my hon. Friend the Member for Hornchurch and Upminster (Julia Lopez) touched on pubs, salons and all those other employers that provide the gateway to jobs for young people. Those are the types of business that we must support—we absolutely need to give them a hand up right now. We need reductions in national insurance, and we must recognise that in a significant way. Businesses think that Labour Ministers have no idea about the fact that they are working 70 or 80 hours a week just to keep their businesses afloat. That work is to generate tax revenues that this wasteful and bloated socialist Government are, quite frankly, destroying in an unjustifiable way.
There must be a recognition, because businesses in my constituency feel let down by Labour and seriously want to fight back against the increase in national insurance, the red tape from the infamous Employment Rights Act 2026 and the taxes on family farms. Businesses are constantly facing a rising tax burden. Even the reliefs in the recent Budget, which Ministers want to gloat about, will not compensate for the overall pain that businesses are facing.
The Minister spoke about fiscal discipline, but fiscal discipline alongside high levels of borrowing and debt will not give the financial and economic stability that local businesses need in our country. Debt is not going down, and borrowing is going up. We know who pays for all that: businesses pay for it all. Ministers come and go—we all know that—and they can make whatever defence they wish, but the reality is that it is hard-pressed taxpayers who are constantly filling Government coffers right now for higher debt and borrowing. Businesses need some latitude and leeway—they really do. I implore and urge this Government to reconsider many of the policies that they are putting in place.
There is a silver lining; it is called the Finance Bill. When that sees the light of day on the Floor of this House, it will give Members the opportunity to challenge the Government to give headroom and breathing space to businesses by lowering taxes, being more responsible on national insurance contributions and freeing up businesses to employ more people. Importantly, it will give Members the opportunity to challenge the Government to give the British people the freedom to succeed and live their lives, completely unshackled from the burdensome taxes that this Government are constantly putting on them.
Alice Macdonald (Norwich North) (Lab/Co-op)
Like the right hon. Member for Witham (Priti Patel), I start by recognising the many amazing employers and businesses across my constituency, from large household names such as Aviva, to local SMEs, including MSI Defence Systems, and local retail and hospitality businesses that are the backbones of our high streets, such as Café 193. I recognise the pressures on employers and businesses, including in the face of external shocks. I will focus on relaying some of the messages that I have heard from businesses and employers in my constituency.
I welcome the targeted measures in last month’s Budget, as the Minister set out, including the business rates relief. That will mean that more than half of all retail, hospitality and leisure businesses in the east of England will pay no rates at all, and another 900 businesses in Norwich and 400 in Broadland will benefit from frozen rates.
I recently attended a roundtable hosted by the New Anglia Advanced Manufacturing and Engineering partnership. Many of those innovative businesses are creating products and jobs in Britain—including for my constituents in Norfolk—but they face challenges. One of the biggest challenges they raised, which will not surprise the Minister, was rising high industrial energy costs, which are affecting trade and regional growth. I welcome the action that the Government are taking with BICS, but I urge the Minister to set out what more we can do to support manufacturing businesses such as those at the roundtable.
Today, we have had good news in the press that £12 billion of investment has been secured to build the Vanguard East and West wind farms off the coast of Norfolk. Those schemes alone will create more than 2,400 jobs, and I want as many of them as possible to be for people from Norfolk. We have to ensure that employers can also benefit from the supply chains. Norfolk has many strengths; renewable energy is just one of them. We have a £20 billion economy and strengths in energy, agrifood, advanced manufacturing, financial services and world-class research, such as at the Norwich research park. When the new Prime Minister came into office, the Norfolk and Suffolk business boards wrote to him together to set out how Norfolk and Suffolk can help to power, feed, connect and innovate the UK’s future. That is the ambition that I have heard from businesses.
I have also heard businesses’ requests that the Government work with them in three key ways that will benefit employers in Norfolk and Suffolk. First, as we have touched on already in this debate, is the importance of backing nationally significant infrastructure projects such as the Bacton energy hub and the desperately needed upgrade at Ely and Haughley junctions. Despite our differences across the House, I know that MPs across East Anglia really support those investments because of the impact they will have on businesses in the area. Secondly, through innovation we could be the leading testbed for new technologies, building on world-class assets such as the Norwich research park. Thirdly, by aligning skills, innovation and industrial policy, we will help businesses to invest, create jobs and develop the workforces they need.
Another clear message I have heard—we have touched on the need for stability—is about devolution and the opportunity it presents for employers and businesses. I welcome Norfolk and Suffolk being on track for devolution. This week, the Reform-led Norfolk and Suffolk county councils have finally reached an agreement on the terms of a devolution deal, which the Government are backing with about £37 million of investment each year. That cannot come soon enough; we need that deal and the associated funding in place as quickly as possible so that we can invest in infrastructure, skills and economic growth. It is really important that employers and businesses’ voices are heard and that they are instrumental in seeing how that investment is spent.
I will not pretend that I have not heard messages from businesses about some of the costs around labour. The Minister has set out why those decisions have been made, and I will continue to listen to the concerns that businesses raise with me and relay them back to Ministers.
Finally, I want to focus on young people, who have so much to offer employers. Far too many young people are not in education, employment or training—something we will be focusing on even more in the next few weeks. I welcome the action the Government have taken, including the jobs guarantee and the jobs grant to back employers who give a chance to young people who have been out of work for six months. I am working with the local DWP office, employers and other local organisations on an initiative called Opportunity Norwich to support young people into work.
No one is pretending that this is an easy situation and that there have not been difficult choices to make. The Budget and the measures the Government have set out are a welcome step forward. As a Norwich MP, I am proud of our city and our county of Norfolk. We are a place of innovation, hard work and creativity, and I am proud of our employers who have consistently shown themselves to be genuine community partners and to bring so much benefit to our local area. I will continue to advocate for the support they need to invest in our region, grow our economy and deliver opportunities to my constituents. I am sure that the Minister will respond in detail to many of the points raised, but I want to urge him to work with us in Norfolk and Suffolk to ensure that as we move forward on our journey with devolution, our employers and, indeed, employees thrive.
Stuart Andrew (Daventry) (Con)
It is a pleasure to contribute to this debate and to follow the hon. Member for Norwich North (Alice Macdonald). I heard a collective thud when the Minister was speaking earlier, which must have been the jaws of businesses in my constituency hitting the floor, because there was a real lack of understanding of the real pressures that businesses are facing.
One thing I love about being a Member of Parliament is spending time going around the constituency, and I always make a point of visiting businesses—be they small, medium or large—to hear directly from them their concerns, and there are many of them. I also hold a regular business club, and it is becoming increasingly difficult in those meetings to give businesses any meaningful answers of reassurance because of the real problems they are facing. I am always struck by just how hard these people are working to keep their businesses going. They are part of not just our local economy, but our community. They create the vibrancy of our villages and our towns and are places where people can meet and congregate. These things are really important. We heard a moment ago about tech and innovation; even in the smallest barn on a farm, some really amazing tech companies are being created, and that is something we should be celebrating.
Employers want their businesses to be successful, and having a great team of employees is a keen part of that. Employers invest not only financially but emotionally in their business. I hear time and again that the costs of running a business are making that increasingly difficult. The spokesperson for the Liberal Democrats, the hon. Member for St Albans (Daisy Cooper), was right to say that a multitude of tax rises are creating that difficulty—not least the Government’s increase in employer national insurance contributions.
The Government will point to the increase in employer allowance, and I appreciate that it helps some businesses, but it does not change the fundamental fact that many employers are facing higher costs just to employ the same people and local businesses are having to make really difficult decisions. Time and again I hear it. I was depressed to hear at one event about a business whose owner had started it three years ago on his own and that was about to employ three people, but the national insurance contribution rise meant that that simply was not affordable any more.
It is not just businesses that are affected. Time and again, when I was a shadow Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Minister, I tried to raise the impact on the charities sector, where I spent 16 years working before entering Parliament. I know the pressures that they face. I particularly worked in hospices, which can only provide care if they can afford to employ the people to look after their residents—children, in the case of the hospice I worked in. The Government will cite their £100 million of capital funding for hospices, but they cannot fund nurses with bricks and mortar. The reality is that these workers should not be facing these tax rises, because they are picking up a massive part of public sector work in caring for some of the most vulnerable people in our constituencies.
We have many wonderful charities in my constituency that provide important services to people who need them. They are employers too, and they still have staff to pay. When I speak to the people who use these charity services, it is not the charity that they talk about but the staff. That is why we must think about those charities as well.
Mr Lee Dillon (Newbury) (LD)
In my constituency of Newbury, a volunteer centre survey found that charities needed to raise an additional £300,000 a year just to stand still. Does the right hon. Member agree that charities’ time should be focused on serving our constituents rather than worrying about fundraising off the back of Labour’s tax rises?
Stuart Andrew
The hon. Gentleman is right. I was the head of fundraising at the hospice, so I know that it takes some time to plan a fundraising strategy. If a charity suddenly finds overnight that it has to find all that extra money, it will be almost impossible, and often they will end up having to eat into reserves, which is not a good thing.
Gareth Snell
I want to go back to the point that I raised to the shadow Secretary of State. The right hon. Gentleman was here when the health and social care levy came around. At no point did the Conservatives attempt to exempt charities and hospices from that tax rise. Why was it appropriate to keep them in scope when he was proposing it but completely inappropriate now?
Stuart Andrew
I point the hon. Gentleman to his party’s own manifesto. Labour promised that it would not do it. That is the reality of it, and that is the challenge that we are putting to this Government.
I really am worried about the opportunities for so many young people. We all remember how important getting our first job was. Mine was being a waiter at a hotel in Anglesey. It taught me about independence, it built my confidence, and it gave me real experience of working, sometimes with very challenging customers. It was really important to build that confidence. But it is becoming increasingly difficult for young people.
I know that employers in my constituency want to give young people those opportunities, but there is a cost involved in taking on and training someone. I spoke to one of the pub owners in my constituency who said that he always used to employ 14-year-olds to wash dishes, and when they got a bit older they would work as a waiter or waitress in the restaurant, and when they were a bit older still they would work behind the bar. As a result, he had trained staff, when they came back from university at Christmas or summer. He simply cannot afford to do that any more because of all the additional costs. Instead, he is employing older people. That is a real problem that we have got to address.
Many people who have just finished university or further education will be trying to get their first job, often without much experience. We should be doing all we can to encourage employers to give them that chance. That is why I support the Opposition’s proposal to halve employer national insurance contributions for under-25s, which would help businesses to plan ahead when taking on younger employers, making it more affordable to employ those who are just starting out. If we do not address this problem, there is a real danger that young people will find themselves permanently stuck in unemployment.
I will make another point to conclude. Some Members talk about employers as though they are somehow separate from working people, but when I visit businesses across my Daventry constituency, I meet people who are working extremely long hours and have often had to put their savings into getting the business up and running in the first place and to keep it afloat. They are serving customers, they are dealing with suppliers and they are doing the accounts. Sometimes they are worrying about whether they will have enough money left to pay themselves, let alone their workforce. They say to me that they wake up in the middle of the night worrying about where the money will come from. I do not think anyone could seriously suggest that those people are not working hard. They are making great personal sacrifices. We should be proud of everything they do and give them encouragement whenever we can. We should welcome the fact that they are providing employment for other people.
I want to see businesses in my constituency and across the country doing well, our local charities continuing their important work, and young people having the opportunity to get into employment, but we must recognise that increasing the cost of employing people has consequences, particularly for smaller businesses. Halving employers’ national insurance for under-25s would be a practical way of helping businesses give more young people a chance in life and the start that I enjoyed. For those reasons, I will happily vote for the motion.
Jayne Kirkham (Truro and Falmouth) (Lab/Co-op)
I want to speak in the debate because Cornwall probably has more self-employed and small businesses than many other places. Small businesspeople hold businesses together and employ people. They take on the responsibility, risk and privilege of creating jobs for other people. I considered myself as much of a working person when I was an equity partner in a law firm that employed 50 people as I did when I was a teaching assistant.
Small businesses do an incredibly important job. I want to talk about a few of them in my constituency. Richard Wakeham at Treveague campsite in Gorran employs six people. We also have Mariners and Harbour Lights, our brilliant fish and chip shops; Bread & Butter in Truro; Fudge & More in St Mawes; and Windjammer, with Oliver running a number of establishments brilliantly. Of course, we have our farmers—I went to see one in Restronguet at the weekend—and then we have publicans like Mark Holden, who runs a number of pubs and has built his hospitality business over 16 years. For many years, Mark has worked hard with young people, setting up apprenticeships and giving training to dozens of Cornish young people. He is working closely with the Government and the Minister for Skills to set up skills training in hospitality down in Cornwall.
The motion concentrates on under-25s, so that is what I will focus on. Our young people have struggled, with rising numbers of NEETs, but that has been over a long time, not just the last two years, as the Milburn review made clear. Alan Milburn said that this has been a growing issue, and among the reasons for that are: how SEND provision in schools dropped off under the previous Government; covid, which was a really big issue for young people and hit their confidence; and mental health support, with child and adolescent mental health services having been decimated in the last 15 years.
As has been pointed out a number of times, employers pay no national insurance contributions on earnings of up to £50,270 for under-21s, nor for apprentices under 25. That makes a saving of up to £6,790 per employee per year, which was worth £2.5 billion in the last year.
Some of the Opposition Members have talked about the minimum wage rises. When the Labour Government first brought in the minimum wage, the figure was similar for everybody over 18, and businesses did not shut down and the economy did not stop, as the Opposition said would happen. When they got into power, they split the minimum wage into three or four different age brackets. That caused an awful lot of problems and inequity, because a 20-year-old’s rent is not cheaper than a 26-year-old’s. In trying to converge those wage differences, we are trying to reintroduce that fairness and the idea of the minimum wage in the first place.
This Government have introduced other measures to help small and medium-sized employers take on young people: £2,000 for SMEs that hire apprentices between 16 and 21; free training for under-25 apprentices; the youth jobs grant, with £3,000 for every young person hired; and the jobs guarantee, which is coming in, for fully subsidised jobs for six months, with the Government covering 100% of the employment costs. There are a thousand people in that first pilot.
There is a lot of work to be done. Under-25s have struggled for many reasons over a number of years, not just because of the job market. What we have to do, and what the Milburn review will make very clear in the next few weeks that we should do, is support those young people to overcome their barriers and help employers to employ them again.
Patrick Spencer (Central Suffolk and North Ipswich) (Con)
I rise in support of the Opposition motion. I rise to criticise this Government’s attitude towards employers, their disregard for the reality of life running a business, their nonsensical approach to tackling poverty and social mobility, and their maddening approach to the economy.
The reality is that a job is the foundational unit in an economy. It is the immortal gene that is fundamental to economic evolution, growth and prosperity. I say that because a job is, first and foremost, an income. An income keeps a roof over someone’s head, food on the table and the lights on. An income is spent and then passes through the economic supply chain, creating more value and, yes, more jobs. A job is not just an income, however; it is a source of pride, purpose and identity. It offers structure, routine and the opportunity for a sense of self-achievement. It is a source of social inclusion, friendship and support. It is also a stepping stone. The job someone has today connects them to the job opportunity that might come up tomorrow, next week or next month. Without a job today, the probability of being in work in future diminishes greatly.
As a result of those three realities, work is indeed the best route out of poverty and into prosperity, not just for the individual but for the population as a whole. Look what happens when work is degraded. All the evidence shows that long-term unemployment is synonymous with depression, anxiety, social isolation and a shortened life expectancy. The Health Foundation found that people out of work and on benefits are five times more likely to report poor health than those in work. And yet, Members on the Labour Benches are obsessed with talking down the importance of a job. They talk of bad jobs and unfulfilling work. The reality is that the phenomenal growth in employment we experienced between 2010 and the onset of covid coincided with a massive improvement in living standards and a fall in material deprivation.
If Members do not believe me, they should read the report from the Institute for Fiscal Studies. The share of children living in material deprivation fell by a quarter in the six years leading up to the pandemic. By 2017-18, severe material deprivation among working-age families was roughly one fifth lower than it was in 2010. Pensioner material deprivation fell continuously from 2010 onward. Why? Because rising employment and earned income, offset the cuts to welfare. That is what we delivered in government: a high-employment, low-welfare economy, which is in stark contrast to the high-unemployment and high-welfare economy that this Government aspire to.
The Government talk about hope. The Conservatives in government gave people hope of a life off welfare and in work. Four million new jobs were created between 2010 and 2024—4 million people who otherwise would have been left languishing on benefits, 4 million people who could go home on a Friday proud of their contribution to the economy, their family and themselves. The Labour Government cannot help themselves but steam in and ruin the jobs market for so many.
Nowhere is that more the case than in their deluded decision to increase national insurance contributions for employers. Can you imagine the contorted logic of saying, “I am from the Labour party, the party of work, and we want jobs for all, so we have decided to tax the people who create the jobs in the hope that taking money out of their pockets will inevitably mean they will have more money to put into yours.” It does not make any sense.
This Government do not make any sense. They are for Europe, then they are against it, then they are for it again. They want to invest in defence, then they do not, then they do and now they do not. They embarked on the famous prawn sandwich offensive in advance of the last election, only to turn around and backtrack on all that pro-business sentiment. They promised they would not tax working people, then they did.
In the process, we saw a Treasury Minister go on TV and refuse to recognise entrepreneurs, business owners and decent people who have taken a risk to start a business as working people. Well, say that to Jason and Kate of Trulock & Harris in my constituency. Tell Roger, the postmaster in Framingham, who had to put up with Storm Babet but kept on going, that he is not a working person. How about Will, who runs the Greyhound in Pettistree, one of my favourite pubs? People travel from across the country to go and visit him. Tell him he is not a working person.
Tell that to Debbie, the landlady at the Kesgrave Bell, who has served that community for a generation and is loved by her customers. Is she not a working woman? Tell my friend Charlotte, who works day and night on her business selling paper and card products and has done for six years, that she is not a working woman. How about Darren from DK9 in Blakenham? Our children are in the same class at school. He invested in rescue teams that helped find little Noah Woods in Brantham earlier this year. Is he not a working man as well? Or perhaps the team at Realise Futures in North Ipswich who have set up a community interest company supporting disadvantaged people into work—are they not working people either?
These are the people we on this side of the House stand up for: the workers, grafters, innovators and disruptors who work themselves to the bone because they want to make payroll for their staff and do not want to let their customers down. This Government could help them. It is not too late. Cut their taxes, reverse the NICs increase introduced by the right hon. Member for Leeds West and Pudsey (Rachel Reeves) and help people get a job.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Order. I call Danny Kruger, after whose speech the time limit will drop to six minutes.
Danny Kruger (East Wiltshire) (Reform)
I want to acknowledge the contributions made by Labour Members, because I think they have clearly articulated their philosophy of growth. In a sense, it is coherent and respectable, because what they believe is that the economic growth is driven by state action. It is true, and they often make this point, that we need the rule of law, infrastructure and proper investment in people, in places and in the sectors that need help. Those are legitimate arguments, but the fact is that our economy is built on businesses. It is built by businesses—particularly small businesses—being free to operate themselves. The prosperity of this country historically was created by free men and women trading with each other with minimal Government regulation. Yes, this took place in a safe and rule-bound world, but with rules that were light and predictable and without excessive taxation.
I think of Marlborough, in the heart of my constituency. This wonderful ancient town was given its charter 800 years ago, and it was a successful trading community on the road between London and Bristol. It was built on the textile trade, with amazing wool manufacture and processing. That is what made it rich. I was honoured to join the procession of the town council to the war memorial on Sunday—we love a procession in Marlborough—and to walk behind the robed councillors and mace bearers proclaiming the ancient wealth of the town.
The economy of Marlborough now largely involves retail, hospitality and tourism. As the procession walked into St Mary’s church, we passed Franklyn’s Bistro, a restaurant I know well—I was in only a month or two ago—and I saw that, to my great regret, it has now closed altogether. This happens in hospitality. Restaurants open and close, but there is something happening in Marlborough and across my constituency and across the country, which is that hospitality is absolutely on its knees.
Worst of all, Marlborough received the terrible news this week that the Polly Tea Rooms had closed down. It was an institution in the town, open for 114 years and surviving two world wars and all the economic ups and downs of the last century and more. This large shop front on the high street had been selling tea and cakes and lunch and dinner for all those decades.
I was very proud to be able to support the Polly during covid, and I was very proud that the owner said, “You have saved the Polly,” because I helped him with managing his application for a covid loan, but I am afraid to say that it is all over.
I want to quote the notice that the owner, David Clarke, put out:
“I have decided to close the Polly Tearooms with immediate effect.
I was hoping that the budget…would offer some help to businesses like ours, but the result was the same as every budget this Government has brought in, quite the opposite…Fuel costs and business rates have also been increasing all of the time, but with the cost of living crisis as it is, we simply can’t increase our prices to our customers and expect them to still come in as often as they did in the past.
The Chancellor John Healey spoke in his budget…of ‘hope’ for the future. He said the word so many times, I lost count. He sounded like Mr Micawber from David Copperfield, hoping something will turn up.
But that is all this government has—hope. No plan for growth, no idea what to do, just hoping something will turn up, rather than creating the environment and conditions to make the economy grow. They are spending far too much money on the wrong things, and then taxing the very people who would be able to create growth to the level that they have nothing left to achieve any of it. The measure for the government investing in anything should be how will this improve our economy. They should apply this test to every penny they spend—literally every penny. But this of course is not what…Labour…do.
So, along with literally hundreds of other businesses, I have no option but to give up trying to make it work.”
I could not put it better myself. I am the son of a restaurateur, so I know how people pour their hearts into these businesses. I am so sorry for the Polly, Franklyn’s Bistro and the other hospitality businesses in my constituency that are closing.
What should the Government do about it? My right hon. Friend the Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick) has set out a series of measures on behalf of my party: we would raise the VAT threshold from £90,000 to £150,000 to support those small businesses to grow, take on more work and take on more staff; we would end tax on overtime; and we would reverse the employer national insurance rise back to 13.8%. On hospitality, we would cut VAT to 10%, we would cut beer duty by 10%, we would progressively over time abolish business rates for pubs, and of course we would repeal the job-destroying Employment Rights Act 2025.
Dr Scott Arthur (Edinburgh South West) (Lab)
I am really sad to hear about the Polly Tea Rooms in the hon. Gentleman’s constituency, but has he spoken to the IFS about cutting VAT? The IFS has said that cutting VAT would not generate the income that people promise, and I think the Treasury says the same. For businesses like the Polly Tea Rooms, I do understand the issue of the national insurance rise in the Budget of two years ago, but the other issue is the cost of living crisis, which is driven by something we have not spoken about in this debate at all: Trump’s war on Iran. Does he recognise those wider impacts on the economy as well?
Danny Kruger
I do not accept for a second that cutting VAT on hospitality would not be of great benefit to those businesses. I am astonished to hear that the IFS might have said such a thing. VAT is one of the major costs that businesses have to carry, so clearly a cut in what is essentially a sales tax for retail businesses would be helpful.
I will speak briefly about the challenge of the cost of living and energy costs in particular, because the issue for retail businesses like the Polly is not just about the costs that they have to carry; it is about the demand for their business being reduced because of the cost of living that customers are carrying, as Mr Clarke said in the statement I read out. What the Government should do is not simply give people more money to spend, but ensure a stable economy and a stable society, and then leave people with more of their own money that they can spend on our high streets.
That is why my party proposes raising the personal allowance for individual taxpayers to £15,000. That would be a tax cut of £500 per person for over 40 million people in this country. On the point made by the hon. Member for Edinburgh South West (Dr Arthur), I say that we would take £250 off household energy bills, which is the right response to the accelerating energy costs that have been caused not just by global instability but by Labour’s obsession with net zero.
Several hon. Members rose—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Order. There is now a five-minute speaking limit for Back Benchers.
Paul Holmes (Hamble Valley) (Con)
British businessmen and women are integral to the growth and sustainability of our nation’s finances. A nation’s economic strength is measured not simply by the size of its Government, the amount it spends or the number of regulations it imposes, but by the confidence, enterprise and ingenuity of its people. It is built by those who take risks, start businesses, employ others, run shops, run pubs, manufacture goods and provide services. It is built from the ground up.
Yet at precisely the moment when we should be strengthening the foundations of our economy, this Government are placing an ever greater pressure on the very businesses that sustain it. I fear that this Government simply do not understand the reality of running a business in Britain today. Indeed, we have seen that in the last couple of weeks. Take the comments by the Chief Secretary to the Treasury that employers are not working people. I do not think a political soundbite has resonated with so many across the country for a long time. I cannot overstate the hurt and insult that that comment caused to the men and women of this country who have had an idea, who get up early, who have gone out and built something, and who have given their employees a start in life, such as a young apprentice they have taken on, even if it means that they have to reduce their own pay to keep open or keep operating. They are the first ones out to work in the morning and the last ones home in the evening. Those comments hurt people, and although the Minister has apologised, I believe that she perfectly summed up the dire situation that this Government have caused for businesses up and down the country.
At the autumn Budget in 2024, the then Chancellor announced an increase in employer national insurance contributions of 1.2 percentage points alongside a reduction in the threshold at which employers begin to pay national insurance from £9,100 to £5,000. That happened despite Labour having promised that it would not do it. Ultimately, businesses have three options: absorb the additional cost, pass it on to their customers through higher prices or reduce their costs elsewhere. Both the Centre for Policy Studies and the Office for Budget Responsibility warned that those measures would lead to higher consumer prices and lower nominal wages. They have affected 1.2 million employers, and 940,000 people have lost out financially. They leave the average employer facing a net increase that will see their liabilities rise by approximately £26,000. Those are not abstract figures; they represent real businesses, real jobs and real decisions about whether to invest, expand or even remain open.
I want briefly to bring the debate closer to home by highlighting the experience of some local businesses in my constituency. Cherrywood Kitchen in Netley, run by Jason Hardcastle, is a small hospitality café that provides local employment and contributes to the community. He has seen a clear impact on the operating costs of his café since 2024, with national insurance contributions rising by over £2,000, VAT liabilities increasing by £4,000 and a weekly wage cost now exceeding £12,500. His cafe is busy. He has seen turnover increase every year that he has operated, but the actions of this Government have meant that he now takes on fewer people and does not take any profit home at the end of the week.
Another local business owner, Matthew Boyle, operates a number of excellent hospitality venues in my constituency, employing local young people—people who the Government claim they want to support. He spent 23 years building his hospitality business, which now employs 175 people, but this Budget and this Government’s actions will add £230,000 of additional annual costs to his business.
Stuart Andrew
My hon. Friend makes an important point. Is he struck, as I am when I meet these business people, by how physically broken they sometimes look because they simply do not know how they are going to survive? Their life’s work and their dreams have been torn to shreds by this Government.
Paul Holmes
My right hon. Friend makes an excellent point, and I go through the same thing as him. One of the most frustrating things on a Friday, when I go to see businesses in my area, is that I have no hope to give them because this Government have given them no hope. The Government need to listen to business people like Matthew who create the jobs and the wealth in the country that they love spending so much.
Ministers must recognise that businesses are not simply a source of revenue for the Treasury; they are the wealth creators of our economy. That is why I am delighted that the Leader of the Opposition has set out our party’s policies on how we would help to meet the challenge that the Government have caused including, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Stuart Andrew) said, by halving national insurance contributions for people aged 21 to 24, saving £1,500 for employers, and abolishing business rates for hospitality. I also believe that we need to consider a VAT cut for hospitality businesses.
If we want thriving high streets, more jobs, better wages and a stronger economy, we must start by making Britain a better place to do business. Employers are working people because they create prosperity—not the Government, and certainly not this Government who are actively making the situation worse. It is not the Government who create prosperity; it is the people and businesses of this country, and they deserve better than what they are getting under this dire Labour Government.
Mr Peter Bedford (Mid Leicestershire) (Con)
Before I came to this House, I spent 17 years in the private sector as a chartered accountant, working with businesses in the food and drink, construction and utility sectors. I sat with owners as they went through their accounts, line by line, working out whether they could afford to take on one more person. When this House talks about business owners, I think of people who put their savings and even their own homes on the line so that others can earn a wage. There are a great many of them. At the start of 2025, there were 5.7 million private sector businesses in the country. Small and medium-sized firms provide almost 17 million jobs—almost three in five private sector jobs—and family firms sit at the heart of that, employing almost 14 million people in the country.
The value of a successful business goes far beyond numbers. In my constituency of Mid Leicestershire, there is David North in Rothley, a family deli that has served the village for more than 50 years; Barrie Stephen in Anstey, a salon that started in one village and has trained stylists who went on to open businesses of their own; and S. J. Langton in The Square in Glenfield. Businesses like those give a teenager their first job and offer the apprenticeship that lets a young person build a career without leaving home. They are the shops that keep our villages alive, but how have this Government treated them?
In the Government’s first Budget they raised employer national insurance contributions to 15% and cut the threshold to just £5,000. The accountancy firm UHY Hacker Young found that national insurance bills for employers rose by almost £28 billion in a single year. That is more than the Government’s own forecast. When we tax something more, we get less of it. Today, small firms planning to cut jobs outnumber those that are planning to hire by more than three to one. Then came the Employment Rights Act 2025, with new costs and new risks for every firm and every new hire. Then there were the business rates, and the results were entirely predictable. The Federation of Small Businesses confidence index fell to minus 71 at the end of last year. The business confidence monitor of the Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales has now been negative for seven consecutive quarters.
The headwinds are getting stronger. Inflation rose to 3.5% in September, with motor fuel up by almost 30% on the year. The OBR has cut growth forecasts for next year to just 1%, and last week the Bank of England raised interest rates for the first time in over three years. Small firms looked to last month’s Budget to help, but the verdict of the Federation of Small Businesses was blunt. Those firms got
“nothing to ease sky-high energy bills, and nothing to make hiring someone more affordable.”
Employer national insurance remains at 15%—the jobs tax remains.
The Conservatives take a different view: Governments do not create growth, businesses do. Our job is to back businesses and then get out of their way. That is why we will scrap the family business tax and the family farm tax. We will introduce a permanent 100% business rates relief for retail, hospitality and leisure, cutting bills for a quarter of a million pubs, shops and high-street businesses. We will halve employer national insurance on jobs for those aged between 20 and 24, because the cost of giving a young person their first break has soared under this Government.
Mr Bedford
I will not. We would repeal Labour’s Employment Rights Act 2025, replace IR35, review Making Tax Digital, scrap the packaging tax and simplify tax for small businesses and the self-employed.
I started working in my early teens, because if I wanted something, I had to earn it. This is the bargain that every business owner makes: they take the risk and do the work, and all they ask is that the Government do not stand in their way. Back them, and they will build this country. Tax them into retreat, and they will stop. The Government must decide which side they are on.
Dr Luke Evans (Hinckley and Bosworth) (Con)
“Yes”—it is a small word, but it is absolutely crucial to creating a successful economy. Yes to that first investment; yes to opening that business; yes to giving that young person a job; yes to taking that risk; yes to expanding; yes to investing—all those things are so crucial to getting a successful company and a successful economy. However, the Government cannot build an economy by making it harder for businesses to say yes. The economy responds not to a Prime Minister saying, “We must have growth,” and his intentions, but to the incentives that Ministers put in place—or, in this case, the disincentives.
We have heard it mentioned before—in relation to the jobs guarantee, for example—that the Government are trying to incentivise people into work, while at the same time disincentivising businesses from taking on people. That is like pressing the accelerator while putting on the handbrake. The Government have given so many businesses a reason to say no. The NICs increase, the business rates increase, the minimum wage increase and the red tape in the Employment Rights Act are a toxic concoction for our businesses, and are having a devastating effect.
Let me take the examples of the café in Burbage, the restaurant in Barwell and Earl Shilton or even the gym in Hinckley. They have had the jobs tax. They have had the minimum wage go up. They have had employment red tape added. They have had business support changed and taken away. They have had business rates go up. They have had their energy bills go up—there was no support in the Budget for that. Is it any wonder that the ONS has said that from October 2026, some 16% fewer hospitality businesses have been created? Across the entire economy, business creation is down by 3.5%.
Let us turn to the wider argument about the environment. As my constituency neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for Mid Leicestershire (Mr Bedford), has said, business confidence has been down for seven consecutive negative quarters. Businesses are losing the confidence to say yes. Why? Because of the employment costs. In a report by the Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales, 53% of businesses cite labour costs and 41% cite taxation. That figure is double what it used to be.
Young people have been mentioned a lot. There are 981,000 people aged between 16 and 24 who are not in education, work or training. That is 30,000 more than last year. It is almost 1 million people, for the first time since 2013. That compares unfavourably with the likes of EU countries; for the first time ever, we are above the EU average.
Why does all this matter? The contribution from my hon. Friend the Member for Hornchurch and Upminster (Julia Lopez) from the Opposition Front Bench got me thinking. We can count the trees that have fallen, but we cannot see the forest that has never been planted. What do I mean by that? We can see the 12,000 job losses in Poundland. We know that Morrisons has had to lay off 5,000 people. Jaguar Land Rover has had to lay off 4,000 people. Claire’s on the high street has had to lay off 2,500 people. Whitbread, which runs Premier Inn, has had to lay off 3,800 people. We can also count the young people who are going abroad. We know that 250,000 people went, of whom two thirds were under the age of 35. But what about the businesses that never opened? What about the investment that was never made, the job that was never offered, or the apprenticeship that was never started?
The cost of this Labour Government’s “no” economy is so great. This is about the opportunity that has never been taken, and the future that we could have had. That is not recorded in any figures. No matter how hard this Government tell businesses to hire, they cannot force people to be hired, or force young people to stay. We cannot build a “yes” economy by giving businesses thousands of reasons to say no. That is why I support the motion.
Graham Stuart (Beverley and Holderness) (Con)
It is a pleasure to take part in this debate, Madam Deputy Speaker.
I started my business at the end of my first year at university. By my third year, it was paying me more than I thought any employer sensibly would—that is, if anyone would be foolish enough to take me on in the first place—so I carried on building that business, with no business experience and no knowledge of how to do anything. I had to learn everything from scratch. Lloyds became my business bankers, and although they were supportive, the sight of the black horse on an envelope was enough to make my palms sweat from sheer stress. All it takes is for the bank to withdraw its support, and your whole business—all your hours, hopes and dreams—are gone.
The Minister is unusual in having some feeling for and understanding of private business. One of the problems is that Government Front Benchers in particular, and the parliamentary Labour party overall, do not. If you do not understand the dynamics of a business—the pressure and the reality of trying to build a business—you will not understand why people were outraged by the Chief Secretary to the Treasury’s remark about employers not being working people. That outrage is not fake; it is real and visceral. Their sense of disappointment in their Government is so strong. Many of them will have voted for this Government, based on their promise that growth would be the No. 1 thing, and that tax would not be put up. It sounded great in the manifesto. Those people feel betrayed by the lack of understanding and empathy for the fact that they are risking everything, including the home that they share with a spouse, who has to sign up as well. They have put all that on the line to create a business. That is the only way to create wealth. The state facilitates—through the rule of law, decent health services, education and the rest of it—but it does not deliver wealth. That can only come from the private sector, and that failure of understanding and personal experience has led to this desperate situation.
The previous Chancellor, the right hon. Member for Leeds West and Pudsey (Rachel Reeves), made a manifesto pledge that must have been made because some public relations person told Labour, the weekend before the election, that if it did not make that pledge, it might not win, and not to be complacent: “Let’s promise not to put tax up on working people.” The Government then broke that pledge by coming up with the clever wheeze of putting tax up on employers, with no understanding of what that would do.
The arithmetic is really depressing. The £26 billion hit to the economy meant that there was not £26 billion to spend on the NHS. It turned out that the increase did not even raise the £16 billion that, according to the OBR, it should have, once the cut in corporation profits and so on was accounted for. The Government then had to compensate the public sector, which brought the figure down to £11 billion or £10 billion. Then they said, “Oh, no, hospices and GPs are not technically part of this,” so they had to find more money. Single-digit billions is all that the Government got for putting a £26 billion or £27 billion brake on the economy. It is utterly insane.
It is noticeable that smaller and smaller numbers of Labour MPs want to come to the Chamber to defend that decision. I congratulate those who have, on their party loyalty if nothing else, but when I talk to Labour colleagues outside this Chamber—if I have a chat with them in the bar, for example—I struggle to find any Labour MP who says, “That was a really good idea. That was the best way of raising money.” They will defend the need to raise money to stick into the health service, repair the “dreadful 14 years” and so on. They buy into that still, but they do not think that putting tax up on employers was a clever way of raising money, because it did not raise very much, it was an enormous brake on the economy, and it has been devastating. It has been most devastating for young people.
Graham Stuart
If the hon. Gentleman wants to intervene on me, I would be delighted to let him come in.
Yesterday, the deputy governor of the Bank of England said that one of the reasons why youth unemployment has gone up faster than unemployment generally—remember, because of that gigantic brake on the economy, overall unemployment has gone up by 250,000 under this Government—was the cost of employing young people, including because of the minimum wage, the jobs tax and so on.
Dr Luke Evans
Would my right hon. Friend care to comment on the state of the graduate market, too?
Graham Stuart
The situation is affecting all young people, is it not? I have used this quote in the Chamber before, but it is worth repeating, even for the tiny number of Labour MPs who were prepared to come here, to vaguely try to support the Government. Ronald Reagan said about the left:
“If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidise it.”
Labour taxed it with a jobs tax; then it regulated it with the Employment Rights Act 2025 until it stopped moving. Then young people were not getting employed anymore. Labour said, “Yippee!” Labour MPs were literally going around the TV studios saying, “Look at us—there is a jobs guarantee.” They have taxed it; they have regulated it until no one is getting employed; and now they will say, “We will subsidise it.” They have absolutely no conception of how private enterprise works, or how the economy works. They are letting the country down, and they increasingly know it, albeit that they do not say so in the Chamber quite yet.
Nigel Huddleston (Droitwich and Evesham) (Con)
Two weeks ago, when I spoke in the Budget debate, I criticised the Government for deliberately increasing the cost of running a business and of hiring people, in the full knowledge that it would cause more unemployment. I said that it is constituents, including mine, who are paying the price for Labour’s economic failure with their jobs. What I did not realise at the time was quite how prescient those comments were. On Monday, one of the largest employers in my constituency, Kanes Foods, went into administration, with the loss of 662 jobs. That is 662 people who last week were paying national insurance and income tax, but who this week are on benefits. My thoughts are with every one of those employees and their families.
Many people may not know or have heard of Kanes Foods, but most of us will have consumed its packaged salads or stir fries, which were on sale in major supermarkets and especially in Asda. Let me be clear that the business had some difficulties, and the administrators have particularly highlighted challenges with a recent waste water treatment issue. Let us be in no doubt, however, that Government policies did not help. When margins are as tight as they are in food production and distribution, even a tiny increase in labour costs can turn a profitable business into a loss-making one.
When the Government whacked up the national living wage by way more than inflation, they added to businesses’ costs. When the Government increased employer national insurance, it added somewhere in the region of £700 or £800 to the cost of employing each and every worker. When a business has hundreds of employees, as Kanes did, that is hundreds of thousands of pounds of additional costs. When the Minister comes to the Dispatch Box in a few minutes’ time, I would like to see him at least acknowledge that the Government have played a part in large numbers of my constituents now being unemployed, and perhaps bring himself to say sorry.
I hold the Government at least in part responsible for the situation, but on a more positive note, I thank the local community for supporting those impacted by the closure of Kanes Foods. In particular, I thank Primafruit, which has already gone out of its way to offer jobs to some of those who lost their jobs, and other businesses are coming forward. I also thank Jobcentre Plus in Evesham, which I spoke to yesterday, which is providing support for impacted constituents and information on how they can claim for pay, holiday pay and redundancy pay. The administrators are also working on that.
I am also concerned about the knock-on impact on the supply chain—on suppliers to Kanes, and on those who are owed money by Kanes. I appeal to them to talk to the administrators. I am hopeful, as are the administrators, that somebody will come forward and buy some of Kanes’ business, or its site. We may be able to get something back and resurrect the business—once a vibrant local family business, right in the heart of the vale of Evesham—in some way, shape or form.
A broader issue, and a key theme in today’s debate, is that this Government simply do not respect people who run their own businesses. They do not consider them to be workers, and the Government overall do not seem to have respect for the private sector. They do not seem to get business. They do not understand basic things like cash flow. They do not have a grasp of even the most basic economic principles, but that is not a surprise; they are socialists. As the saying goes, if a socialist understood economics, they would not be a socialist.
Before entering Parliament, I spent 23 years in the private sector, and that amounts to more private sector experience than the Prime Minister, the Chancellor, the Business Secretary, the Home Secretary, the Foreign Secretary and the Housing Secretary have combined. In fact, it amounts to more private sector experience than is in 90% of the Cabinet, which is startling, but it probably goes some way to explaining why this Government are well on track to continue Labour’s unenviable record: every single Labour Government since the second world war has left office with unemployment higher than when they started. Let us contrast that with the Conservatives’ record in government, between 2010 and 2024, of helping to produce an environment in which 4 million jobs—800 jobs a day, on average—were created.
There is an alternative. There is a pro-business, Conservative alternative, articulated by the shadow Business Minister in her opening speech, and that is why I will wholeheartedly support the motion.
Esther McVey (Tatton) (Con)
Nothing highlights the fiscal failure of this Government more starkly than the plight of Poundland. The chain’s 600 stores and 12,000 workers sit on the verge of collapse, not because customers have walked away—they have not; sales grew by 6.7% in September—but because of the Government’s unaffordable tax rises, which make it impossible to run a business that works on slim profit margins. Those that work on slim profit margins keep prices down for customers. How ironic it is that a Government who preach about helping the least well-off and helping with the cost of living are forcing those firms out of business.
Business owners in my constituency are mystified by the damage that the Government have inflicted on businesses up and down the country. What I am asked by them most often is, “Do this Government not understand the harm that they are doing, or is it that they just do not care?” They have concluded that it is both. The Chief Secretary to the Treasury, the right hon. Member for Wycombe (Emma Reynolds), made sure of that when she said that employers were not working people—which, by the way, was a kick in the teeth for every employer in the country who is often at work before everyone else, and leaves work after everyone else. When the former Chancellor, the right hon. Member for Leeds West and Pudsey (Rachel Reeves), announced that she would raise business and employer-related taxes by over £50 billion by the end of the decade, she wanted money for Labour’s pet projects—benefits and net zero—and she did not care that they squeezed the life out of businesses. Labour did not care where that money came from. I asked the right hon. Lady on several occasions whether she expected the number of jobs to go up or down when she taxed them. She did not say. She did not know. She was shocked.
Labour does not seem to understand that you cannot tax your way to growth and you cannot spend your way out of debt. The consequences have been job losses and, combined with day one workers’ rights, fewer opportunities. The tax rate policy hit on family businesses was hard as well.
Ben Maguire
I have sat here for nearly an hour and a half, and I have not heard anything from Conservative Members about how they will address the elephant in the room: how to generate economic growth and rebuild trade relationships with our closest partners in the EU and elsewhere. Instead, we just hear criticism of the national insurance jobs tax. I completely agree with the right hon. Lady about that, but we are not hearing anything—
Madam Deputy Speaker (Ms Nusrat Ghani)
Order. This is a debate about employers, not about our relationship with the EU.
Esther McVey
When it comes to getting costs down for employers, I would start with energy. I welcome the Government’s—eventually—approving the drilling in Jackdaw, and they need to admit to doing the same in Rosebank and going further. They should look at what our neighbours in Norway have managed to do by drilling in their country.
Let me return to the subject of family businesses. The Government showed a complete lack of knowledge of family businesses and how they are run when they capped what would have been 100% tax relief for business properties and taxed the assets as they did so. They did not understand that the life of a business can be a couple of years—it may not last—or it can go on for generations. It does not end when the founder of the business dies; it goes on. The Government did not seem to have a clue about that; they showed complete disregard.
The other thing my constituents talk about is why the Government hate wealth creators. Why do they hate the wealthy? It must be—has to be—the politics of envy and jealousy. Frankie Dyer of Barbakan Delicatessen—one company in my constituency, but it could have be any of the 365 hospitality businesses there—sent an open letter to the Prime Minister before the Budget. She wanted help, particularly with national insurance contributions, which have had the worst impacts on her business, now costing her an extra £1,000 per employee. If someone has 50 or more employees, they will have no profit left at all, and they certainly cannot invest to grow their business.
Frankie said that her business is second-generation, and it is 62 years old. It is now facing severe financial pressures. Despite the business having an annual turnover exceeding £2.3 million and winning more than 10 awards for its products, soaring operational costs—energy bills, tax obligations and national insurance—mean that the business is now struggling to stay afloat and to pay its bills each week. She is calling on the Government to reduce national insurance contributions. She wants to employ more young people, as does the whole of the hospitality sector. People in the industry want VAT, which those on the Labour Benches led them to believe would be reduced, to be reduced to 13%, and they want the charge on employment—the tax on jobs—to be reduced. The Government should reduce national insurance contributions.
Rebecca Smith (South West Devon) (Con)
The Government are quick to lecture Conservative Members about how to care for the most vulnerable, but at the very moment that Ministers say they want more people getting into work—as we have heard time and again this afternoon—they have increased the cost of employment. We all know that work is the best form of welfare, and Labour’s job tax is shooting the Government in the foot.
Time and again, local businesses tell me that they can no longer afford to take on apprenticeships. The double whammy of higher employer national insurance contributions and the increase to the minimum wage has simply become too much to bear.
Gareth Snell
The Conservatives have made the argument that they would like to see a reduction in national insurance. Will the hon. Lady spell out, in pounds and pence, by how much the Tory party would like to see the minimum wage cut to achieve the outcomes that she is suggesting?
Rebecca Smith
I thank the hon. Member for his question, but many questions of that nature have not been answered this afternoon. That is not what I am here to talk about. I am here to talk about the fact that businesses are currently dealing with this situation. What happens in the future is irrelevant; we are talking about what is happening while this Government are in power.
We know that by next year the annual cost of employing a full-time worker on the minimum wage will have increased by more than £4,000 since 2024—a whopping 31% increase in just three years.
Rebecca Smith
I will continue.
It is little wonder that job opportunities have shrivelled up under Labour, as has been pointed out by Members on the Government Benches. Vacancies fell by 21,000 between July and September this year, and as we have heard, small firms are being hit the hardest. To get our economy moving again, the Conservatives would halve employer national insurance contributions for under-25s. We would help young people get a foot on the ladder by backing the businesses that are prepared to give them that first opportunity.
Madam Deputy Speaker, you might be pleased to hear that there are more than 3,700 small and medium-sized enterprises in South West Devon, much like in Cornwall, which has been mentioned already. The south-west is home to many SMEs. Each one represents somebody who took a risk, invested their savings, employed local people and worked many long hours to build something of their own. In fact, that was my own experience. My dad regularly went out to work before I had even had breakfast, then came home and fell asleep—I never got a story or anything like that. He was out working six days a week, running his small business. When he was asleep, he was worrying about how the business was going to survive.
For many sole traders and small business owners, there is no guaranteed safety net if their business fails. If they have no public sector pension waiting for them at retirement, they are in an even more precarious position. I was therefore genuinely astounded when a Labour Minister had the audacity to claim that employers are not working people. The employers I know work incredibly hard. They are, as we have heard many times today, the ones opening up before dawn and locking up long after everyone else has gone home. They are the ones managing staff, cash flow and contracts. They bear the ultimate responsibility when things go wrong. When a business goes under, the employees may be able to move on to another job—although given the examples this afternoon, that is perhaps less of a possibility—but for many business owners, it is not that simple. They are losing something they have devoted years of hard work to building.
The Labour Government seem to forget that 99% of businesses in the UK are small and medium-sized enterprises, meaning that they have fewer than 250 employees. Saddled with ever higher costs, these businesses are now faced with difficult choices to raise prices, cut trading hours or make redundancies. Indeed, one local café owner told me that they have been forced to cut back deliberately on younger staff to protect the jobs of their employees who have mortgages and rent to pay. Added to that, they breed poultry, and they have had to increase the mid-year price of chickens, which will go on and lay eggs for people, for the first time in 18 years, which is driven by rising prices of animal feed, gas and fuel.
One local electrician from Plympton has told me how he regularly sees about 10 other businesses at the wholesaler each morning. There was a time when the majority of them had an apprentice, but now it is just him, and he has one only because it is his son, so it is in his interest to keep the business going. Ministers seem to have forgotten that employers pay the apprentice when they are at college as well as when they are at work, and the costs are just too high.
I have 670 construction businesses in my constituency, and one of them used to participate in an innovative scheme to support recovering addicts back into work. It partnered with well-loved Shekinah, a Plymouth homelessness charity, which provides employment support for people undergoing treatment for drug or alcohol misuse. These people would work for the company on a flexible basis, starting at a few days per week and building up gradually. After a few months, the workers would go on to gain full-time employment with other businesses. However, the company’s founders, Aaron and Sarah, say that it is impossible to continue offering this scheme due to the increased labour costs. As Aaron has said:
“We are so sad about this, as it is something that we feel is vital. Everyone needs a second chance and the chance for work and purpose in life.”
I believe that that is a sad indictment of Labour’s damaging policies.
The couple have also made the difficult decision to stop taking on apprentices. The business simply cannot afford it, despite being regularly approached by local colleges. Aaron told me that the total employment cost per day for a 21-year-old with no experience is now over £100, but for twice the cost he could recruit and employ an experienced tradesperson, who would be three or four times more productive from day one and require no supervision.
Despite the changes at the top table, this is the same old Labour, with more taxes and higher costs. If the Government are serious about helping people off welfare, they should stop making it harder to hire them. Labour’s answer is to punish employers. Ours is to create more opportunities and more apprenticeships, and get more people into work.
Robbie Moore (Keighley and Ilkley) (Con)
When Labour campaigners knocked on doors at the last general election, they made a promise—a promise that they would not raise taxes on working people and that they would not increase national insurance—and people put their trust in them. Today, however, the shutters are coming down on our high streets, young people cannot get a foot on the ladder and the business owners, who were told that they had nothing to fear from this Labour Government, are now paying the price for that broken promise. Let no one pretend that this is a debate about abstract tax rates; it is about jobs, the future of our high streets and whether the commitments that this Labour Government made to the electorate carry any weight at all.
Labour let the mask slip when the Chief Secretary to the Treasury said that employers are not working people. What an absolute load of rubbish. Of course, employers are working people—the café owner who starts work before dawn, the farmer who employs staff from the local community, or the pub landlord who has gone without their own salary to keep their staff in work. Each of them are working people, and each of them have been asked to pay more by this Labour Government, who promised that they would not.
On broken promises and the rising cost of employment, Labour’s manifesto stated that it would not increase national insurance, yet in its first Budget the Government increased employer national insurance from 13.8% to 15% and cut the threshold at which it is paid from £9,100 to £5,000. The thresholds actively hurt part-time and lower-paid roles, which are precisely the jobs on which many young people depend. Ministers claim that this is not a tax on businesses, but it absolutely is a tax on businesses and working people. That has been seen throughout this debate. Then there is the increase to the minimum wage, which again stifled business growth. And that is before we look at the challenge of the Employment Rights Act 2025. Under this Labour Government we have seen higher taxes, higher costs and more red tape. Far from being the party of business, Labour is showing itself to be actively discouraging growth and killing the businesses up and down the country that are the very backbone of our economy.
Let me turn to my own constituency. We have held many roundtables with many local businesses, and I thank Sarah Brookfield-Almond and Ryan Troy from the Ilkley and Keighley business improvement districts for helping me to organise them. The businesses who came along were retailers, hospitality businesses and independent traders. Employers of every size were present—people who have spent years building up their businesses and who give work to local people across my constituency. Their message was consistent and stark: they described the relentless pressure of the increase in employer national insurance contributions, the minimum wage increase with no support to meet their needs, the business rates that bear down on them and the uncertainty of the Employment Rights Act hitting their businesses hard. These businesses are not asking for special treatment; they are asking for a Government who understand and want to support them.
One fantastic local business which has grown and expanded is Three Little Birds Bakery, owned and run by Bec Severs. She has a shop in Keighley, and recently opened one in Ilkley. Bec has been very clear about her views on the Labour Government’s most recent Budget. Taking to Facebook, she said:
“This budget does nothing to help”.
On the latest minimum wage rises, she says there is “absolutely no support” for how she will now have to pay that money to her employees. That has been heard loud and clear by the Turkey Inn, which has now reduced its working hours from seven days a week to four days a week on the back of this Government. Then we look at that hospice sector, which is being hit very hard, such as Sue Ryder Manorlands hospice in my constituency, by the rise in employer national insurance.
Those people are not think-tanks. They are not economic advisers to this Government. They are hard-working people in my constituency who are being impacted heavily by the choices of this Labour Government. This Labour Government are not on the side of hard-working people and my constituents are feeling the brunt of it.
Sarah Bool (South Northamptonshire) (Con)
Fewer sentences have caused such shock and reaction than when the Chief Secretary to the Treasury said that employers were not working people. I feel so saddened for all those small business owners across my constituency who have worked so unbelievably hard and sacrificed so much to give so many other people the opportunity of work. I think about Magda, who runs the Omorfi Nails and Beauty salon in Towcester. She does not only employ staff; while also bringing up her family, she is studying medical practice so that she can help people with diabetes—a matter close to my heart—through podiatry. It is an insult to say that she is not hard working and a working person. No matter how many examples we give, the Government simply will not listen. I wish they would engage. The voices from all the stories told here today are those of actual people from our constituencies who are living and breathing this. I implore the Government to take this issue seriously.
At the very beginning of the debate, the Minister talked of breathing space. I think the only “Breathing Space” people recognise is the song by the Pet Shop Boys, but I think their version might be slightly more popular than the Chancellor’s. We ask businesses every single day to take risks. The contract must be that if we ask them to take a risk, we give them the confidence to be able to operate their businesses, not the shifting sands constantly coming from this Government and their Budgets. Actions ultimately speak far louder than words, because hope does not pay the bills, hope does not put food on the table and hope does not heat our homes.
As we have identified, the people suffering most are our young people. We have heard many examples of people who are struggling to get opportunities and jobs. One of the pubs in my constituency—I have just run a pub of the year competition—said that it put up an advert for just a couple of hours of work at the weekend for those under 18. It received 200 applications for just one job. There are so many young people who are absolutely desperate to get into the working environment, but they cannot because those businesses cannot give them the opportunity. That is a travesty that has happened on this Government’s watch.
Nearly 1 million young people are NEETs, with 60% of those being economically inactive—not just not in work but not even looking for it. There is a much deeper issue of youth detachment from the market, which hurts young people’s confidence, health and ability to earn an income, and it hurts the taxpayer, because it is incredibly hard for us to give young people opportunities if those jobs do not exist. That is why I welcome the Conservative proposal to halve national insurance contributions for the under-25s to get them into work.
I will flag—as I did in justice questions this week—that the Employment Rights Act has introduced many powers that the Government laud, but with them we are going to start to see an increasing amount of red tape. With that red tape comes an issue with employment tribunals. When people are going through a dispute with an employer, one of the most difficult times of their lives, they are going to discover that there is a huge backlog for tribunals. There are already over 70,000 open single cases. In reducing the time from two years down to six months to bring a tribunal claim, the Act is going to increase the workload and the backlog in the courts by a third. That is madness.
We are slowing down the economy with everything we do. The Employment Rights Act is exactly as the Conservatives describe: it is an unemployment rights Act. It is burdening our businesses and slowing down opportunities, but the Government and the Labour Benches just sit and stare. That is the problem: they are sitting and staring while hard-working people out there are trying to make a living. The Government need to start listening.
My poor farmers were looking to the Budget for a little bit of help and assistance—88% of my constituency is agricultural land—but they are not getting any. Another big issue that we have to focus on are the massive issues in the pig industry. I will save that discussion for another day, but the industry is desperate for some support from the Government. I implore the Government one more time: please, do listen to the Opposition Benches. The Government may not want to on political grounds, but we are literally just voicing the concerns of our constituents. Please listen.
Peter Fortune (Bromley and Biggin Hill) (Con)
It is a pleasure to close this debate, and I thank every Member who has spoken across the House. That includes the hon. Members for Loughborough (Dr Sandher), for Truro and Falmouth (Jayne Kirkham), for East Wiltshire (Danny Kruger), and for Norwich North (Alice Macdonald)—Norwich is a fine city.
On the Opposition Benches, I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Witham (Priti Patel), who took us on an excellent canter through the businesses in her constituency. I thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Stuart Andrew), and my hon. Friends the Members for Central Suffolk and North Ipswich (Patrick Spencer) and for Mid Leicestershire (Mr Bedford). My hon. Friend the Member for Hinckley and Bosworth (Dr Evans) talked about the importance of the word “yes”, and I will hold him to that in future. I thank my hon. Friends the Members for Hamble Valley (Paul Holmes), for South West Devon (Rebecca Smith), for Keighley and Ilkley (Robbie Moore), and for South Northamptonshire (Sarah Bool), and my right hon. Friend the Member for Tatton (Esther McVey).
My right hon. Friend the Member for Beverley and Holderness (Graham Stuart) gave an excellent speech about his business sense; he also talked about his sweaty palms, which explains some of his bowling when we are playing cricket. The most important contribution was from my hon. Friend the Member for Droitwich and Evesham (Nigel Huddleston), who talked about the reality of businesses failing, and the 662 jobs that have been lost due to the squeezed margins at Kanes Foods—we wish them all well.
If this debate comes down to anything, it is two simple truths: if we tax growth, we get less growth; if we tax jobs, we get fewer jobs. That is not ideology; it is the exact logic that Government will use when they tax things such as tobacco. The difference is that the Conservatives would very much like to see more jobs.
Let me be clear what I am talking about: employers are the café owner who opens at 6 am; the scaffolder out in the rain; the builder, the hairdresser, the gym owner and the hotelier; and the pub landlord, who on any given night is also the cleaner, the accountant and, when needed, the bouncer. They take the risk, they put their own house on the line, and then they do something remarkable: they give other people a job. They are the backbone of our high streets and our economy and we value them.
In Bromley and Biggin Hill, I see them every week, in places such as The Oak pub in Bickley, Tip Top key cutters in Hayes, or the Spitfire Café in Biggin Hill. They are not asking for special favours; they are asking not to be charged more for doing the very thing that the Government say they want them to do, which is to give someone a job.
That brings me to the remarks of the Chief Secretary to the Treasury on the first of this month, when she told GB news:
“I don’t think employers are working people. They are companies.”
I do not say this to be unkind. Every one of us has said something careless over the weekend that we have then spent Monday morning trying to explain—I certainly have. By the next day, it had fallen to the Science Minister to tell LBC that employers are working people. I have always believed in following the science, and I hope the Treasury will, too.
I have met a great many companies in Bromley and Biggin Hill since then, and some were greatly distressed and hurt by that statement. These are hard-working people who felt undervalued, disregarded or that their work was being disrespected; some were angry; and most of them have a first name. They open early, close when the last customer leaves, and do the VAT return at the kitchen table on a Sunday night. If that is not working, I would love to know what is.
This matters because of a promise. Before the election, Labour said in its manifesto that it would not increase taxes on working people, and that is why it would not increase national insurance. Businesses up and down the country were told again and again that Labour was on their side. Then came the first Budget, when the rate of employer national insurance went up from 13.8% to 15% and the threshold at which employers started paying fell from £9,100 to £5,000, bringing in around £25 billion a year with a tax on every job in the country, paid before a single new person is taken on. The only way for Labour to square its promise with that tax was to decide after the election that the people paying it no longer count as working people. With respect, that is not a definition; it is an escape hatch.
We warned that this would happen, as did the OBR, which said at the time that the rise would mean higher prices and lower wages, that around 940,000 employers would lose out, and that the average employer losing out would face a bill around £26,000 higher. The number of people on payrolls has fallen for most of the past two years. Youth unemployment is at its highest in more than a decade. Earlier this year, the number of young people neither earning nor learning passed 1 million for the first time in more than 12 years. That should trouble every one of us. When a Government put up the cost of hiring, the first person not hired is the one without experience. That is no judgment on them; it is just the arithmetic.
Here is the part I find hardest to square: this tax was sold as a tax on businesses, not on working people. However, the OBR’s own assumption is that over time, around three quarters of the cost—76%—is passed on to employees through lower real wages. This means that the tax that was not on working people turns out to be paid mostly by working people—it is just done behind a curtain of accountancy and in a way that never appears clearly on the front of the payslip. Instead, it appears in the pay rise that did not happen, the extra shift that was not offered and the job that was never advertised. Those are the hardest losses to see and the easiest for Government to overlook.
It is not only the high street. Think about who else is an employer: the GP practice, which is a private partnership and pays employer national insurance like anyone else; the care home; the nursery; the community pharmacy; and the local hospice, which is a charity, raising money one fun run at a time. I recently visited Demelza hospice, a remarkable charity that helps life-limited children and their families. The compassion staff bring to their roles was matched only by the frustration of rising employment costs, putting specialist staff at risk.
When this tax was announced, many hospices were surprised to find that they were caught by it. They had heard that the NHS would be protected, and assumed that that meant them. It did not. Every pound a hospice spends on national insurance is a pound raised at a cake sale that never reaches a patient.
Then there are the businesses I speak for in my own brief as shadow Minister: our fantastic hard-working manufacturers—firms that compete with the whole world on thin margins and that often have to train skilled people from scratch. Raising the cost of employing someone means raising the cost of training them, too. That is the last thing a country that wants to make things again should be doing.
Bill Perera, who employs more than 700 people in Bromley through his McDonald’s franchises, said that
“while individual measures may be manageable in isolation, their combined effect is placing a strain on investment, recruitment and long-term growth.”
National insurance, the wage bill, energy costs and new employment rules—each one on its own looks manageable, but together they decide whether a business takes on one more person.
The new Prime Minister and new Chancellor promised breathing space. It is a lovely phrase—I will give them that. But for the employer staring at a higher national insurance bill, a higher wage bill and a higher energy bill, it feels less like breathing space and more like they are holding their breath. A new Prime Minister was a chance for a new start; instead, we have simply put a new cover on an old book.
I want to be fair to the Government, because I know what Labour Members will say, and it deserves an answer. They will say that they inherited difficult public finances. Every new Government say that. I will not pretend that the choices were easy, but choosing how to fix things is the whole job of Government. They chose to put a tax on jobs after promising not to. At the very moment that the economy needed more people in work, that was the Labour party’s choice. They will say that they protected payslips—that employee national insurance, income tax and VAT were left alone. But as I have said, the OBR experts say that the workers carry the cost anyway. The Government can protect the front of the payslip and still shrink what is written on it.
Labour Members will say that we raised national insurance ourselves in 2022. We did. We listened and reversed that within months, because it was the wrong call at the wrong time. There is no shame in changing your mind when the evidence changes. I say gently to the Government that it is one of the few things in politics that it is never too late to do.
Paul Holmes
Does the shadow Minister agree that the key difference between our increase and the Government’s increase is that in their manifesto to win the general election in 2024, they said that they categorically would not raise national insurance?
Peter Fortune
I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. Saying one thing and doing another is something that we are getting very used to from this Government.
What would we do? We would halve employer national insurance for workers aged 21 to 24, taking the main rate down to 7.5%. We are not inventing a new idea here. Under-21s and apprentices under 25 already pay no national insurance on most earnings. That was a Conservative reform and this Government have kept it, so I take it that they agree that it works. All we are asking is why that help should stop on someone’s 21st birthday, just as so many are leaving university or college and looking for a proper start. Nor is it only a Conservative idea. The cross-party Work and Pensions Committee recommended in July that the Government extend the relief to all under-25s. When a Committee with both Labour and Conservative Members agrees on something, it is usually worth a second look.
Most of us in this House remember our first job and the person who took a chance on us. Mine was at the South London Press in Streatham—though, to be fair, I think they regarded that as a mistake pretty sharpish. For a lot of young people, that first chance comes as a job in a café, shop, pub or hotel. Those are exactly the businesses that this tax hits hardest and that our plans would help most. On business rates, we would give retail, hospitality and leisure businesses full relief—up to £110,000 each—so that our high streets have genuine room to grow and hire. We look at the whole bill that businesses face—not one line of it—because that is how the person running a business has to look at it too.
Napoleon supposedly called us a nation of shopkeepers. I am sure he meant it as an insult, but as we know things did not go terribly well for poor old Boney after that, and I consider it a compliment—a strength, part of our industrious culture and something we can be proud of. The motion asks the House to agree with something that most of our constituents would think goes without saying: that the person who opens the shop, runs the pub or builds the extension and who pays the wages of the people working alongside them is a working person. If Members agree with that, they can say so tonight in the Lobby.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business, Innovation, Science and Trade (Blair McDougall)
It is a pleasure to respond to the debate with you in the Chair, Madam Deputy Speaker. I join other Members in paying tribute to the work that entrepreneurs do in our country—to the sacrifice, long hours and sleepless nights that have been referenced.
The right hon. Member for Beverley and Holderness (Graham Stuart) singled me out as being someone who has empathy with and an understanding of business. I do not know if that will result in him having to surrender his party card, or perhaps in me doing so, but I will take it in the spirit that it was intended. We absolutely understand the feeling of jeopardy that he talks about.
My hon. Friend the Member for Loughborough (Dr Sandher) spoke powerfully about the feeling of responsibility that employers have, including his parents, towards their workers. For all the disagreement that there will be in this debate about how we do it, our job is to make that just a little bit easier, because it can be an all-encompassing and, at times, lonely enterprise running a business.
I will endeavour to respond to as many points raised by right hon. and hon. Members around the Chamber as possible. Several made me hungry and reminded me that I skipped lunch earlier on today. The right hon. Member for Witham (Priti Patel) and my hon. Friend the Member for Truro and Falmouth (Jayne Kirkham) referred to fantastic food businesses in their constituencies, and even the reference to the prawn sandwich offensive from the hon. Member for Central Suffolk and North Ipswich (Patrick Spencer) brought on that feeling.
I do, however, want to echo the remarks made by my right hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to the Treasury in his opening speech. The big macroeconomic picture for the UK is this: we were the joint fastest growing economy in the G7 in the first half of this year, the IMF has upgraded our growth for this year, and the IMF’s chief economist has called the UK the “stand out” economy for deficit reduction, with the lowest forecast deficit in the G7 by 2029.
Esther McVey
Will the Minister inform us how many businesses have gone to the wall since Labour came into government?
Blair McDougall
It has been a dreadful decade for businesses, and for small businesses in particular. As I said at the beginning, our job is to make it easier to invest and to ensure that we are cutting red tape and increasing access to finance. I will talk about that in a moment.
In the Budget, we took action to give the businesses that the right hon. Member for Tatton (Esther McVey) is concerned about and employers some breathing space. We continue to work on the long-term changes that are necessary to create good jobs and growth in every part of our country. As a result of that work, employment is up this year—it is higher than previously forecast in March—and, in fact, the UK has the third highest employment rate in the G7. Meanwhile, business investment—so often embarrassing under the previous Government—relative to the size of the economy remains at its highest level for a decade.
Of course, as Members have said, there are global headwinds from the conflict in the middle east. [Hon. Members: “Ah!”] Conservative Members say “Ah”, and they do not like to be reminded of that, because they were calling for us to take part in that conflict. People and employers are seeing the impact of that conflict in their bills. We know that there is more to do, but this is a country that is turning a corner.
With that, I turn to the points raised throughout the debate, starting with national insurance, which was raised by several hon. Members. The facts are these. Employer national insurance contributions are forecast to raise about £150 billion in 2026-27. That is a significant contribution to the funding of our public services. Why is that needed? Because we cannot have a strong NHS or strong public services without investing in them, investing in our country and rebuilding the crumbling infrastructure we inherited after 14 years of austerity.
Stuart Andrew
The national insurance rises are really affecting hospices: in some cases, 40% of their beds are closing. Where will those people go? They will go to the national health service. How does that help our public services?
Blair McDougall
We recognise that and, as was mentioned, we are providing additional resources throughout the NHS and hospices to help with that.
On relief for employers, hon. Members will know that the employment allowance was estimated to be worth £7.4 billion in 2025-26. That provides eligible employers with up to £10,500 a year towards their national insurance contribution bills.
That is obviously not the only help that we gave to businesses in the Budget. As my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich North (Alice Macdonald) noted, we have lifted tens of thousands of businesses out of business rates. Several hon. Members raised concerns about youth unemployment.
Graham Stuart
Will the Minister acknowledge, because he not only has the ear of business but is a very honest Member of this House, that, notwithstanding the talk about support for business and the 70,000 businesses that have been mentioned, overall the Budget raised the tax on business by another £2.2 billion, on top of the £66 billion that came in the two previous ones?
Blair McDougall
We asked business, and banks in particular, to pay a little more so that we could give people help with their energy bills. We have heard in the debate, once again, that the Conservative party opposes that and so opposes that additional support that people are getting with their energy bills this winter.
As has been said, no employer is paying national insurance contributions on under-21s up to a salary of £50,000 and similarly for apprentices who are under 25, which is a saving of around £6,700 at most for employers. We have doubled the employment allowance and ensured that 40% of companies do not pay national insurance contributions.
Lincoln Jopp (Spelthorne) (Con)
Has unemployment gone up or down on this Government’s watch, and what has caused it?
Blair McDougall
Unemployment is still lower than in comparable economies—[Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman asked the question, so I will answer. Employment is up and inactivity is down in this country. It is precisely because we are concerned about youth unemployment that we are introducing measures such as the £2,000 hiring payment for smaller employers to take on young people and the £3,000 jobs grant for those at risk of sliding into youth unemployment. As several hon. Members have noted, that is in stark contrast with the increase of a quarter of a million in youth unemployment and inactivity in the last few years of the Conservative Government.
Blair McDougall
I will give way to the hon. Member for Hamble Valley (Paul Holmes) for one last intervention and then I will make some progress.
Paul Holmes
The Minister has outlined the £2,000 payment to businesses. Does he think that it is best for a Government to administer that payment or to reduce taxation on businesses so that they can choose to employ younger people without that Minister getting in the way?
Blair McDougall
It is precisely because we recognise, as many right hon. and hon. Members have mentioned, that retail and hospitality give so many young people their first job that we are lifting so many of those businesses out of business rates and lowering the tax burden on those individuals.
I will follow the Prime Minister’s lead and note that we agree on a lot despite the debate across the House. We agree, as many hon. Members have said, that small businesses in particular are the backbone of our economy, we agree that more must be done to support business to employ people, and we agree that young people should be supported.
Blair McDougall
I will make some progress.
We agree that young people should be supported into work. However, we disagree fundamentally on how to go about that. The hon. Member for South West Devon (Rebecca Smith) spoke about the minimum wage, but told the House that she did not want to talk about what might happen in the future. I think I know why that is. It is because in a report from the Prosperity Institute, the shadow Business Minister in the other place committed to freezing the minimum wage for five years. That is a real-terms cut of 12% for the poorest workers that will not just take £8,900 out of the pockets of the poorest workers in the country, but take that money out of the tills of businesses in their communities.
The way to fix the issue we have with youth unemployment is to increase the number of apprenticeships, increase the flexibility of those apprenticeships, invest in the growth sectors that will create the well-paid jobs of the future, ensure that those young unemployed people are more attractive to potential employers and take all the other measures that we are taking to invest in business.
The Tory plan for those young people who have been rejected over and over again and who are close to being broken by the experience of being let down by the system is to punish them for that. We will not do that. The Conservatives offer only insecure hours, cuts to incomes and poverty pay. That did not work for 14 years, it did not work for employers and it will not work now.
Question put.
Independent Expert Panel
(1 day, 6 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Business without Debate
(1 day, 6 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
National Security Strategy (Joint Committee)
(1 day, 6 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Northern Ireland Affairs
(1 day, 6 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Procedure
(1 day, 6 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Public Accounts
(1 day, 6 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Science and Technology
(1 day, 6 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Work and Pensions
(1 day, 6 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Charity Commission
(1 day, 6 hours ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Ashley Dalton (West Lancashire) (Lab)
I am grateful to have secured this debate and to raise an issue that is important not only to my constituents but to everyone who relies on the vital work of charities. It concerns whether the Charity Commission currently has the necessary powers and resources to respond effectively when charities are not properly governed.
A charity’s ability to operate successfully and serve our communities depends on public trust. Well-governed charities can make an enormous difference to people’s lives, and trusteeship carries series legal responsibilities. Trustees are custodians of charitable assets, and they must comply with the governing documents and manage the charity’s resources responsibly to ensure that activities further charitable purposes. When charities are not appropriately governed, the consequences are significant, and it undermines public confidence and deprives the local communities they are supposed to serve. When trustees fail to meet their responsibilities, there must be an effective regulator with the powers and resources to intervene swifty and restore public trust in the charity sector, the vast majority of which does an excellent job. That is the role of the Charity Commission.
I acknowledge the important work of the Charity Commission. It regulates more than 170,000 charities in England and Wales, overseeing a sector that is responsible for tens of billions of pounds in annual income and expenditure. It has a range of statutory powers, including the ability to investigate misconduct and mismanagement, to require information and documents, to issue official warnings, to suspend or remove trustees, and in appropriate circumstances to appoint interim managers.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I commend the hon. Lady for her assiduousness in bringing forward this issue. Although the Charity Commission should have teeth, does she agree that it is the job of enforcement agents such as HMRC, or indeed the local council, to take a bite out of those who are in breach? The delineation of powers must be clear, and that is one thing that charities perhaps needs some help with.
Ashley Dalton
A wide range of powers are held by a number of organisations, and it is crucial that each one of those takes responsibility and has power to work within its own remit, as I am sure the hon. Gentleman would agree. There are serious questions as to whether the Charity Commission’s current framework is sufficient. A regulator’s ability to investigate concerns does not necessarily mean that it has the capacity to intervene swiftly or effectively enough, and there is a pertinent concern in my West Lancashire constituency, where I have been engaging with the Charity Commission over long-standing concerns about the management and governance of Scarisbrick village hall.
In 1972, local people secured a piece of land and went about fundraising and building a village hall, a village green and a children’s playground. They then fundraised and erected a war memorial to the Scarisbrick residents lost in the world wars who had not previously been recognised. Many years went by, with the village hall being a valued community asset, including the village green and the children’s playpark. In recent years, however, concerns began to surface over the running of the hall and facilities.
First went the children’s playpark, with trustees claiming that funds could not be found to maintain it. The trustees then changed the name of the village hall to The Venue Scarisbrick, marketing it as a function suite. Local organisations such as the Scouts were allegedly deprioritised, and regular slots that they had been using were changed, making it difficult for them to continue, forcing them to go elsewhere. The trustees then fenced off the village green, denying access to local residents, and renting the green space to a private sector petting zoo. The final straw came in July 2025 when the trustees proposed the permanent removal of the war memorial. I launched a petition to save the memorial, and wrote to trustees in August 2025 setting out my concerns and requesting a meeting. I received no response. I chased it in August and later in October, but I still received no response.
Meanwhile, local residents became increasingly concerned about not only the trustees’ decisions, but their behaviour towards residents. It transpired that the trustees were using the hall as a base for their own private sector businesses and charging other businesses to use the address. When challenged, the trustees refused to meet local residents, refused to meet or correspond with me, and called the police when local residents protested at the proposed removal of the war memorial. On inspection, it transpired that the trustees have set up a limited company in the name of The Venue Scarisbrick, of which some of the trustees are directors. There is no indication of how that company relates to the charity that owns the building. They have also failed to register accounts for the charity for several years running.
Residents demanded an annual general meeting, as one had not been held for some time and was long overdue. In February 2026, six months later than the governing document required, the trustees, despite receiving advice from the Charity Commission that they must hold the AGM in person, held an online broadcast, claiming that it was an AGM. There was no way to ascertain who was there, how many people were present or whether they were eligible to be there. There was no way to contribute unless explicitly invited to do so.
When it came to so-called elections, the trustees were appointed by ballot by email. It was not secret, and there was no adequate scrutiny or transparency. Unsurprisingly, all the existing trustees were re-elected. Not only was the so-called AGM appallingly run, but the chair of the trustees took the opportunity to launch a 15-minute verbal attack on local people who challenged him. Local parish councillors have been threatened with legal action and intimidatory language on social media. While the war memorial was saved—at least for now—the village green remains inaccessible and the trustees remain in charge.
Sir John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings) (Con)
The hon. Lady is making a bold and brave case. As she knows, she has recently become a bit of a heroine of mine following a recent and well-publicised speech. Is not the problem here the Charity Commission? I do not know if it has the resources, the means or the legal powers required, but, in a variety of cases that I have drawn to its attention on woke causes—about which we might not agree—it seemed to be highly ineffective. She is talking about a very local case, but she is highlighting a bigger point in doing so.
Ashley Dalton
I thank the right hon. Member for his contribution. That is the point that I am making: whether the Charity Commission has the powers, resources and ability to act. I fear that the story I am laying out today is far from unique across the country.
Grahame Morris (Easington) (Lab)
I congratulate my good and hon. Friend on securing this debate. There is a really key point about trust and accountability. Does she share the concerns of myself and other members of the coalfields group of MPs about the activities of the Coal Industry Social Welfare Organisation? It is a charitable body established by Parliament in 1952 to provide support to mining communities. Many former mining communities, including some in my own constituency, say that they are missing out on millions of pounds of investment from the sale of former miners’ welfare halls and outdoor welfare schemes. Does my hon. Friend agree that the public must have confidence that charitable trusts are held accountable for their actions? Will she support our efforts to ensure that the Charity Commission takes all appropriate action in the cases that we have identified?
Ashley Dalton
I absolutely agree with what my hon. Friend has outlined. The Charity Commission should support all charities, because it is fundamental that public trust remains. That is why residents and I have engaged with the Charity Commission and raised concerns regarding the transparency and governance of Scarisbrick village hall and the decisions being made.
The Charity Commission has begun an investigation. Following the February AGM, the commission confirmed that concerns about the failure to comply with advice and the conduct of the meeting itself had been escalated to its regulatory compliance team. Further concerns, including concerns around social media activity and questions about the transparency and integrity of the AGM ballot, have been added to its case records. However, by June, the commission confirmed that the case remained ongoing and was progressing.
Last month, the commission advised that it had received a significant volume of further correspondence, including new concerns about the conduct of a trustee on social media. It also confirmed that it was continuing its investigation and planned to undertake a books and records inspection in the coming weeks. I appreciate that thorough investigations take time, particularly where there are complex governance issues to consider. However, this case illustrates the challenges of addressing concerns in a timely way, particularly where further issues and inappropriate conduct continue to emerge while an investigation is ongoing. Residents of Scarisbrick are concerned that the village hall will potentially be lost and its resources frittered away.
Those concerns have been compounded by further developments. Two companies associated with the management of the village hall, The Venue Scarisbrick Ltd and Community Inclusion Projects Ltd, have appeared on Companies House as having active proposals to strike off. That raises even more questions about corporate governance and the protection of charitable assets and community facilities. Given that this case has been ongoing since last summer and I have been raising concerns with the commission for a year, I ask the Minister to consider what more the Government can do to ensure the commission can investigate cases of this nature promptly.
Vikki Slade (Mid Dorset and North Poole) (LD)
I am staggered by the story of Scarisbrick village hall—what the hon. Lady is describing is terrifying. It seems to me that the Charity Commission does not have the resources it needs to do any of its work. I have a constituent who is starting a charity, HeritageTies, and he has been told that it is going to take 23 weeks to register his charity. During that time, he cannot get a bank account, fundraise, or start the job he is trying to do. I am told that 3,000 new church charities have been added, so does the hon. Lady agree that we need a root-and-branch investigation of whether the Charity Commission has the resources it needs to do its job?
Ashley Dalton
I thank the hon. Member for her contribution. This is an ongoing issue, and she will be aware that the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee’s report on the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman’s investigations of the Charity Commission more widely has raised similar concerns. It also questions whether the commission shows sufficient boldness in exercising its existing powers, and whether it has the powers it needs to regulate the charitable sector effectively.
Sam Carling (North West Cambridgeshire) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend for referencing my Select Committee’s recent report. Will she join our Committee in calling on the Government or the Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Select Committee to hold a thorough consultation on the commission’s powers, both to identify whether it needs further powers and whether it is making the best use of the powers it already has, and particularly whether the legal advice it is getting is too risk averse?
Ashley Dalton
I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention, and join him in that call.
I would welcome an update from the Minister on the Committee’s report and on the Government’s plans to take forward its recommendations, particularly its proposal for a wider consultation on the powers of the Charity Commission. Is the Minister satisfied that the commission’s existing powers and resources are adequate to enable it to intervene at an earlier stage where there are persistent governance concerns and potential risks to charitable assets? Are there opportunities to strengthen the regulatory framework so that the commission can take effective action without unnecessary delay? Ultimately, this is about ensuring that the Charity Commission has the resources, powers and support it needs to fulfil its responsibilities, protect charitable assets and maintain public confidence in the charitable sector.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport (Vicky Foxcroft)
I am pleased to respond to this debate, and I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for West Lancashire (Ashley Dalton) on securing it. She is an incredibly powerful woman—such a powerful woman that she has been able to get the Secretary of State to attend the debate. She also shares powerful woman characteristics with my mother. I have to mention my mother today, because it is her birthday and, sadly, I am not able to be with her.
Village halls and other such spaces are often the lifeblood of our communities, and I pay tribute to the army of workers and volunteers who selflessly provide vital services in them, to communities up and down the country. In the vast majority of cases, these spaces are well-run and treasured by their communities, but on rare occasions, problems can arise.
My hon. Friend has raised concerns about Scarisbrick village hall in her constituency. Such cases highlight the important role that local Members of Parliament can play in resolving issues in their communities. I congratulate her on securing a positive outcome that protects and preserves the war memorial. On the ongoing concerns about the management of the village hall, I note that the Charity Commission opened a regulatory compliance case into the charity in February 2026. The opening of a case is not a finding of wrongdoing, but a step the commission can take to consider concerns in greater detail. The case is ongoing, and the commission is therefore limited in what it can say at this stage. However, I understand that the commission intends to meet the parties involved at the charity’s premises in the coming weeks.
The Charity Commission for England and Wales plays a vital role in helping community charities, such as village halls, to thrive, and in supporting public trust and confidence in charities across the sector.
Grahame Morris
Trust is important, and I support the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for West Lancashire (Ashley Dalton), but further to the issues that I raised in my intervention, I point out to the Minister that we are expecting a judgment from the Charities Commission on the evidence provided to it by Members of Parliament representing coalfield constituencies. We gathered that evidence from local authorities, the National Union of Mineworkers, the Industrial Communities Alliance and around 20 locations across the UK coalfields. This is not an isolated issue, so does the Minister believe that the Charity Commission has sufficient powers to effect the change required to hold charities to account for their actions? If I may be so bold, will she agree to meet a delegation from the coalfields group to look at some of the evidence that we have gathered, which should raise concerns for the Charity Commission investigators?
Vicky Foxcroft
I will come to the points that my hon. Friend raises later, but I will say that the Under-Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport, my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley South (Stephanie Peacock), met the Charity Commission when she was the Minister responsible for civil society to discuss CISWO’s support for coalmining communities. My hon. Friend the Member for Easington (Grahame Morris) cares deeply about supporting coalfield communities, and the Government and I share that sentiment. I would be happy to meet a delegation.
We rightly rely on the Charity Commission not only to promote best practice and deliver knowledge for trustees, but to step in and act when issues arise. As a civil regulator, its core responsibility is to ensure that trustees comply with their duties under charity law, that charities pursue their charitable purposes for the public benefit, and that any misconduct or mismanagement is addressed. The Charity Commission has a range of statutory, investigatory and enforcement powers at its disposal to effectively regulate charities and address wrongdoing. The Government fully support the Charity Commission in taking proportionate action in such cases, but it is important to note that the Charity Commission can only take action where there is misconduct or mismanagement. Where a charity pursues its charitable purposes within the law and the terms of its governing document, the commission cannot intervene.
Peter Lamb (Crawley) (Lab)
I am a member of the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee, and we have had the Charity Commission in to review matters, in the wake of its attempt to violate privilege in several cases that had been dealt with badly. Would it surprise the Minister to learn that the Charity Commission has expressed concern about the limits of its powers? One example was an incident in which a member of a charity board dealing with children had been asking for intimate photography of children. They resigned from that role, which meant that they could not be disbarred from holding an office in another charity in future, because the powers of the commission apparently did not extend that far.
Vicky Foxcroft
I am interested in having a further discussion with my hon. Friend, because what he has described sounds extremely worrying.
It is undoubtedly important to resolve disputes such as the one raised by my hon. Friend the Member for West Lancashire, for the benefit of local communities. Indeed, many of the points that she raised seem deeply concerning. However, with more than 170,000 registered charities to regulate, the Charity Commission takes a risk-based approach to regulation to ensure that no issue or complaint is overlooked, while also ensuring that it acts in a proportionate manner and uses its resources to prioritise the highest risks. That means that in some cases the commission cannot take action, or cannot take action as swiftly as those involved would like it to, and final outcomes of casework can depend on the complexity of each individual case. The commission experienced a 50% increase in the number of concerns raised about charities between August 2025 and 2026, which has left its resources severely stretched. It is important that we have a regulator that can act effectively to tackle abuse and mismanagement of charities.
Sir John Hayes
There is a fundamental difference between others raising concerns and a Member of the House doing so. We do this all the time, do we not, in respect of public bodies, Government Departments and so on? That should be given an appropriate degree of weight by the Charity Commission, because we speak for our constituents.
Vicky Foxcroft
I agree. The Secretary of State and I discussed the possibility of presenting this as a test case to establish why it is taking so long to be resolved, and we will explore that further.
In the 2025 spending review, in recognition of all of the challenges faced by the Charity Commission, we gave it a 25% uplift in funding, which is backing a three-year transformation programme to manage rising demands on its services. I know that it has been criticised recently by both the Committee of Privileges and the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee for its approach to reports by the Public Service Ombudsman, which made findings of maladministration in two cases. The commission has apologised unreservedly to Parliament in response to the Committee of Privileges report, and has accepted the report in full. I have confidence in the commission’s leadership, and I know that the board is taking action to address the concerns raised by the reports and to learn lessons for its handling of similar cases.
The Government keep the Charity Commission’s powers under regular review, and are committed to strengthening them where needed. On 14 October, the Government published a consultation proposing expanded charity trustee disqualification powers, which will help to protect charities from extremist abuse.
Sam Carling (North West Cambridgeshire) (Lab)
The Government are rightly consulting on those additional powers for the commission—which I welcome—to disqualify people from being trustees or senior managers if they engage in conduct that promotes hatred of people on grounds of race, religion or belief, but does the Minister agree that we should not limit the powers to those three grounds? We often see discrimination in the form of misogyny or homophobia, and discrimination against disabled people. Would the Minister consider extending her proposals to cover those as well?
Vicky Foxcroft
We will indeed be happy to engage with my hon. Friend and look into his proposals. We will also consider carefully PACAC’s call for a broad review of the Charity Commission’s powers to ensure robust regulatory oversight, and will continue to engage closely with the commission on that.
Let me again thank my hon. Friend the Member for West Lancashire for securing the debate, and genuinely thank all the Members who have contributed to it. I think that it has been enhanced by all those contributions.
Question put and agreed to.
Draft Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (Cryptoassets) (Miscellaneous Amendments) Regulations 2026
Draft Financial Services and Markets Act 2023 (Addition of Relevant Enactments) Regulations 2026
(1 day, 6 hours ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Lucy Rigby)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (Cryptoassets) (Miscellaneous Amendments) Regulations 2026.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to consider the draft Financial Services and Markets Act 2023 (Addition of Relevant Enactments) Regulations 2026.
I will now call the Minister to move the first motion and speak to both instruments. At the end of the debate, I will put the question on the first motion and then ask the Minister to move the second motion formally.
Lucy Rigby
These two instruments serve a common purpose. They make targeted practical changes to relevant regulatory frameworks and support innovation in our financial services sector while, very importantly, maintaining appropriate protections for consumers and markets. We want the UK to maintain its position as a world-leading financial centre as new technologies reshape payments and our financial markets. That requires clear rules, proportionate regulation and the ability to remove barriers as markets develop.
Earlier this year, as hon. Members know, we legislated to establish a financial services regulatory framework for cryptoassets, including stablecoins, with the aim of giving firms greater certainty to invest and innovate in the UK and, importantly, protecting consumers. The regime comes into force in October next year. The first draft instrument does not replace or seek to reopen the comprehensive framework we introduced. It simply makes targeted refinements to ensure that the regime works as intended, remains proportionate, and supports a competitive market here in the UK. Its principal effect is on UK-issued qualifying stablecoins.
Appropriately regulated stablecoins could play an important role in both retail and wholesale payments. We consulted widely on the wider reforms to payments regulation, including the treatment of tokenised payments such as stablecoins. Without the amendments before us today, firms using UK-issued qualifying stablecoins and payment chains could be caught by the cryptoasset requirements designed primarily for trading activities. Following continued engagement with the sector and with some really helpful input from hon. Members, we have concluded that that outcome would not be proportionate.
The first instrument therefore excludes UK-issued qualifying stablecoins from the cryptoasset dealing and arranging activities. It also excludes their temporary holding from the safeguarding activity where that holding is in connection with the payments transaction. It is very clearly not about removing stablecoins from regulation entirely. Issuing qualifying stablecoins in the UK will remain regulated. Lending and borrowing activities will remain in scope, and overseas-issued stablecoins will continue to be in scope of the cryptoassets activities.
Turning to the second SI, as hon. Members know, FSMA 2023 allows us to establish financial market infrastructure sandboxes. In those sandboxes, firms can test use of new innovations and technologies in a live environment in relation to financial services markets. Each FMI sandbox provides a modified legislative framework to enable that to happen where existing requirements might otherwise impede innovation. The power in FSMA 2023 was designed with flexibility in mind. When the power was created, it was not possible to know at that time every provision of legislation that might need to be modified as technologies developed. Section 17 of the Act therefore allowed further legislation to be added to the “relevant enactment” list, which defines which pieces of legislation can be modified using the sandbox powers. The second instrument before us today adds a further 10 enactments to that list.
The new enactments relate to areas such as debt issuance, company law, payment services and the rehabilitation of offenders. Certain areas of legislation were identified through our work to prepare for the issuance of the Government’s digital gilt instrument, DIGIT, which will be the first digital gilt issuance in the G7, putting us ahead of other countries in our agenda to push forward digital assets. These additions will allow the digital securities sandbox to operate more effectively and provide the legislative flexibility needed to enable DIGIT to be issued through a platform operating within the DSS. I should make it clear that the second instrument does not modify the enactments that are listed; it only brings them within scope of the existing FMI sandbox powers, so that necessary modifications can then be made through the sandbox framework.
These instruments are practical steps within our wider programme of work to modernise UK financial markets, and I hope they provide regulatory clarity. They seek to remove barriers, where that is sensible and proportionate, and they allow new technology to be tested responsibly and in a way that continues to protect people. I hope that the Committee feels able to support both instruments.
Mark Garnier (Wyre Forest) (Con)
I begin by thanking the Economic Secretary to the Treasury for her enthusiasm to engage after we debated this topic in January this year. A problem highlighted at the time was the confusion between what is a cryptoasset and what is part of a payment system. Something like Bitcoin is effectively dematerialised gold, so there needs to be regulated investment advice for people who have invested in it, whereas a stablecoin such as Tether is actually part of the payment system. It was incredibly thoughtful of the Minister to engage with me and others to resolve the difference between those two things.
I would particularly like to thank two people for giving me advice on that issue—Mike Ringer and Professor Sarah Green. They are far cleverer than me, and they came in and highlighted the problem. To my way of thinking, having been here for 16 years, it is incredibly good that Parliament works so effectively when we get together and sort out a problem such as this. I thank the Minister and all her officials for their engagement.
The second instrument relates to the City of London and the UK remaining at the forefront of financial innovation. We are delighted that this measure is coming through, and I thank the Minister once again. Mrs Harris, you have chaired an afternoon of unanimity and enthusiasm towards the Government.
Question put and agreed to.
DRAFT FINANCIAL SERVICES AND MARKETS ACT 2023 (ADDITION OF RELEVANT ENACTMENTS) REGULATIONS 2026
Resolved,
That the Committee has considered the draft Financial Services and Markets Act 2023 (Addition of Relevant Enactments) Regulations 2026.—(Lucy Rigby.)
Draft Employment Rights Act 2025 (Unfair Dismissal) (Removal of Limit on Compensation) (Consequential Amendments) Regulations 2026
(1 day, 6 hours ago)
General CommitteesRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Committee divided: - Ayes: 10 / Noes: 4 - Question accordingly agreed to.
The Minister for the Future of Work (Kate Dearden)
I beg to move,
That the Committee has considered the draft Employment Rights Act 2025 (Unfair Dismissal) (Removal of Limit on Compensation) (Consequential Amendments) Regulations 2026.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Alec. The draft regulations, which were laid before the House on 12 October, will make necessary consequential amendments arising from the Employment Rights Act 2025. Commencement regulations have been signed to confirm that, from 1 January 2027, the statutory cap on compensation awards for unfair dismissal will be removed. A number of other employment law provisions do not contain their own stand-alone compensation limits; instead, they cross-refer to the unfair dismissal cap. Once it is removed, those references would no longer operate as intended. The draft regulations therefore replace or remove them where necessary.
At present, compensatory awards for unfair dismissal are capped at the lower of £123,543 or 52 weeks’ gross pay. The 2025 Act removes the statutory cap by repealing section 124 of the Employment Rights Act 1996. Removing the compensatory award cap forms part of a wider package of reforms to strengthen unfair dismissal protections, which will reduce the qualifying period from two years to six months. Together, the changes will give more than 6 million employees greater security at work while ensuring that employers retain the flexibility to assess and, where appropriate, dismiss new recruits during the first months of employment.
Steve Barclay (North East Cambridgeshire) (Con)
Will the consequence of these provisions be felt more keenly in the public sector than the private sector, given the interaction of the regulations with final salary schemes, which are more generous in the public sector?
Kate Dearden
We do not think there will necessarily be a significant impact on employers. We are removing the cap—I will come on to the engagement we have had, and am happy to update the right hon. Gentleman on it—but a process will still be in place for unfair dismissal claims to be handled in an established, known way by judges.
Let me continue with the provisions affected by this statutory instrument. It will replace references to section 124 of the 1996 Act with references to section 123 of that Act. That means that tribunals will continue to determine compensatory awards based on what is
“just and equitable in all the circumstances”.
Compensation will remain based on evidence of actual and projected losses sustained by the claimant. In practice, most awards are expected to remain modest, reflecting the continued application of these well-established legal principles, as I have said. That is important, because most of these provisions concern claims for detriment brought by workers when that detriment consists of their contract being terminated.
Steve Barclay
The Minister just said that she thinks the implication of the provisions will be modest, but is it not the case that higher-paid potential claimants have been deterred by the cap, that removing the cap will open the door to many more higher-paid claimants, and that therefore their claims will not be modest, particularly, as per my previous intervention, when they relate to final salary pension schemes, such as those in the NHS?
Kate Dearden
As I have said, this change does not reset how tribunals calculate awards. Tribunals have well-established ways to calculate compensation that might be awarded for particular losses, and they will continue to base those awards on evidenced actual and projected financial losses. We are committed to ensuring that all employees receive fair compensation when they have been unfairly dismissed. We are talking about unfair dismissal here.
As I have said, the provisions concern claims for detriment brought by workers. Our long-standing approach is that such workers should receive neither more nor less compensation than they would have received as employees for bringing an unfair dismissal claim. These amendments preserve that alignment after the statutory cap is removed.
The regulations also amend section 140 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992. That provision concerns compensation where a person is refused employment or the services of an employment agency for reasons related to trade union membership. The amendment ensures that compensation in those cases continues to be aligned with the unfair dismissal compensation.
We are taking a different approach to sections 67 and 176 of the 1992 Act. Those provisions cover compensation payable by trade unions when members or former members have been unjustifiably disciplined, excluded or expelled. Parliament removed the compensation cap for unfair dismissal, but it did not intend to increase compensation limits for trade union discipline and expulsion cases. The regulations therefore preserve the existing limits in those provisions.
The regulations preserve the existing position by replacing the reference to section 124 with the fixed amount of £123,543, which is the current cap on unfair dismissal compensation. That amount will continue to be uprated annually in line with inflation using the retail prices index, and the additional limit based on 30 weeks’ pay will remain. That ensures that removing the unfair dismissal cap does not change the existing compensation limits that apply in these cases.
Finally, the regulations amend the ACAS Arbitration Scheme (Great Britain) Order 2004. They remove references to section 124 so that, following the removal of the unfair dismissal compensation cap, an arbitrator’s powers to award compensation continue to align with those of an employment tribunal.
The regulations are an important and necessary step in implementing the unfair dismissal reforms that Parliament has already agreed. They are necessary so that, when the unfair dismissal compensatory award cap is removed on 1 January, the wider statute book continues to work as intended. They preserve existing policy where appropriate, and ensure that related compensation provisions remain effective. I commend the regulations to the Committee.
Bradley Thomas (Bromsgrove) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Alec. Removing the statutory cap on unfair dismissal compensation demonstrates yet again just how little this Government understand business. Insurance and legal specialists have warned that the removal of a legal limit on payouts, coupled with increasing the time limit for employment tribunal claims from three to six months, will trigger a substantial number of insurance claims. That will likely force insurance companies to pay higher rates to their own reinsurance, which ultimately will drive up prices for business customers.
Furthermore, it has been highlighted that as employment practices liability risks accelerate, speciality solutions will become increasingly valuable. This is yet another cost of employment, encompassing both direct financial expenditures and high-risk liabilities, which the Government expect employers to absorb without regard for the economic consequences. The domino effect of this policy is easy to predict: employers will become more risk averse and employment opportunities will decrease. When it becomes more expensive to hire, fewer people are employed. Furthermore, as there is no doubt that this policy will open the floodgates to claims, the already overstretched employment tribunal system will become all the more overwhelmed, inevitably leading to higher defence costs being incurred. That is good for lawyers; it is not good for businesses.
To be clear, we know the vital importance of employment rights, and we unequivocally support having comprehensive protection for workers, but the point we continue to emphasise, and that the Government keep dismissing, is that in order to have secure employment rights, there has to be secure employment in the first place. The Government continue inaccurately to imply that we do not care about workers and their rights, yet the Conservatives are the only ones fighting for policies that will actually protect jobs and get more people into work.
The removal of this cap will only deter employers further, push unemployment higher and compound the pressure on a tribunal system that is already over-extended. It is for those reasons that we will vote against it. To truly support the workforce, the Government must start listening to the businesses encountering the very hurdles that the Government continue to introduce. Creating an economic environment where businesses can thrive is the only way to drive hiring and sustain long-term job growth.
Sarah Olney (Richmond Park) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Sir Alec. The Liberal Democrats voted against plans to remove the compensation cap as the legislation made its way through the House, and we will oppose the SI today. The removal of the limit on compensation was a Government amendment at a very late stage in the progress of the Bill and was something that took a lot of people by surprise, which was why we were not able to support it on that occasion. We will continue to oppose it now.
The Minister said in her opening remarks that she would expect compensation payout awards to remain modest. I would challenge her on that point, because I do not know on what basis we can expect claims to remain modest if we remove a compensation cap. There will undoubtedly be an increase in claims from people who would now expect to receive an award above the cap, and that will not only increase the backlog, which is already immense in the tribunals and causing a huge amount of detriment to my constituents, and I am sure hers as well. It will contribute to increasing that backlog, and it will create massive disruption for employers. I am particularly concerned that where employers currently take out insurance and pay premiums to cover the cost of employment tribunals, those premium costs will either go up enormously, or some employers will find that their costs are simply uninsurable. That will create a knock-on impact so that some of these jobs will simply not be available. It will be too great a risk for employers to take people on.
Jo Stevens (Cardiff East) (Lab)
The easiest way to look at this is: if you do not dismiss somebody unfairly, you do not carry the risk of having to make a payout in compensation.
Sarah Olney
The whole point about a tribunal is to assess whether somebody has been dismissed unfairly. It will undoubtedly be the employer’s point of view that it is not an unfair dismissal, but the employee’s view that it has been. That is the point of a tribunal. The employer will not have been intending in any way to dismiss somebody unfairly. Nobody intends to dismiss unfairly. [Interruption.] The point of the tribunal is to test whether an unfair dismissal has taken place.
My final point to the Minister is this: as we go through this process, there is a fundamental shift at the moment between what humans will continue to do in the workplace versus what will be taken on by AI or other innovative tech. The changes will make it more difficult and more expensive for employers to take on human beings to do the work, which will undoubtedly accelerate the shift that is already taking place. For that reason, the Liberal Democrats will oppose this SI.
Steve Barclay
I am sure the hon. Member for Richmond Park will agree that it is quite rare for her and me to agree, but she is right to pick up on the Minister’s opening remarks and the oddity of the comments that claims will be modest, because, if claims are modest, why the need to remove the cap? The removal of the cap is because some claims will not be modest. It seems self-evident that a consequence of the regulations will be an increase in claims, and therefore an increase in the risk to employers and a deterrent to employers to hire, which is the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove made from the Opposition Front Bench.
First, it seems odd to suggest that claims will be modest while bringing forward the removal of a cap, which provides scope for unlimited claims moving forward. As I tried to suggest in my intervention, in the NHS, for example, some consultants at a senior level will be well paid. They will have final salary schemes and their claim could be quite significant. Indeed, some NHS managers are on salaries of several hundred thousand pounds and a claim in that instance could be significant. That brings me on, following the point from the hon. Member for Richmond Park, to a second consequence of the regulations. Not only will the quantum of claims increase, but the quantity of claims will increase. Currently, particularly for senior salaries, people might pursue other routes and not make a claim because the cap is such that it creates a deterrent. However, the removal of the cap acts as a pull factor because it is an incentive for those on the highest salaries, and that does not just apply to areas such as the NHS. If we think about financial services firms, some very large claims could flow from the removal, and someone in a modest role in such a firm will feel a sense of unfairness when they see the mega-payments that might come as a consequence, so the quantity of claims will increase.
Thirdly, I was a little surprised by the Minister’s opening remarks, because the draft regulations were not set in the wider context of the other changes that the Government are making, such as giving trade unions greater access to employers, making it easier to come in and harvest or encourage claims, or to create a grievance where there may not be one. The draft regulations should not be seen in isolation: they need to be seen alongside the other changes that the Government are making.
To respond to the right hon. Member for Cardiff East, surely the answer is not to have unfair dismissal. She has had a very respected legal career in this field— I think it was in this field, but she certainly has a lot of experience in this area—and no one wants to see claims or action by employers that justify an unfair dismissal claim. However, an employer is not guilty until proven innocent, and some people will be incentivised to bring claims that may not be justified. Therefore, there will be instances—although not all—where claims that are not valid are incentivised by the removal of the cap. Ultimately, that will be a further cost to employers, in addition to the many other costs that they face at a time of rising inflation and growing regulation.
That is why I find myself in the uncharacteristic position of agreeing with the hon. Member for Richmond Park. The quantum will increase, and the quantity will increase. This also sits alongside other changes that the Government are making, and it speaks to a Government who do not trust employers or back businesses, but who are happy to see additional costs on those businesses. They then seem surprised when youth unemployment, in particular, continues to rise as a direct consequence of the decisions they make, including the decision they are making today.
Kate Dearden
It was disappointing to hear what the Opposition said, as voting against the draft regulations does not mean that the removal of the compensation cap will not happen—that is already in place. What we are debating today is about keeping the statute book neat, and I hope I made that clear in my opening remarks. We discussed this issue at length during the passage of the Bill—I am old enough to remember last year—and today we are talking about keeping the statute book neat. I want to reflect on a few points, and I apologise if this is repetitive.
Sarah Olney
I want to challenge what the Minister said about us debating this measure at length. It was not introduced until a very late stage, so there was not a lengthy debate about removing the compensation cap.
Kate Dearden
I fondly remember debating it on the Floor of the House, and it was of course debated in the Lords too.
I will address some of the points made by Opposition Members. As I have said, employers will continue to comply with the law and will not be directly affected by these changes, so the impact on businesses will be limited. The vast majority of unfair dismissal awards are well below the existing cap, and tribunals rarely award compensation at the maximum level.
Removing the cap does not mean that large awards will become routine. In 2023-24, there were 646 awards for unfair dismissal from employment tribunals, and the median award was £6,746. Lifting the cap does not mean that compensatory awards will become impossible to anticipate. As I said in my opening remarks, tribunals follow well-established principles when calculating the compensation that might be awarded for particular types of losses resulting from unfair dismissal. I am glad that Opposition Members mentioned employment tribunals, because, under the Conservatives’ watch, unlawful fees were introduced. They presided over a substantial reduction in tribunal funding during austerity and left the tribunal system facing significant capacity and workload pressures. Yet again, we are trying to get the support and fix and improve the system.
That is why I have spoken at length with the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Bromsgrove, about the really important work we are doing with colleagues in the Ministry of Justice to make the system more resilient and make sure that people get access to justice. This is about fairness and security and employees knowing that they can get the justice they absolutely deserve. The Conservatives made it harder for workers to access justice; we are strengthening the rights to make justice possible. I am going to choose not to bite on our wider approach on employment rights, because I could spend however long we have left talking about why that legislation is important and why I am proud that this Government are leading on it.
As I have explained, the decision to remove the unfair dismissal compensation cap has already been made by Parliament. These regulations make the consequential amendments needed to ensure the related compensation provisions continue to operate correctly once the statutory cap on unfair dismissal compensation is removed. They are necessary to maintain consistency across the statute book and preserve existing policy where appropriate. I therefore commend the regulations to the Committee.
Question put.
Draft Licensing Act 2003 (Permitted Temporary Activities) (Amendment) 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 Licensing Act 2003 (Permitted Temporary Activities) (Amendment) Order 2026.
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Ms Jardine. The purpose of this instrument, laid before the House on 10 September, is simple. It will increase the number of temporary event notices that may be given in respect of a single premises from 15 to 20 in each calendar year. It will also increase the maximum number of days on which temporary events may take place at those premises from 21 to 26. Subject to Parliament’s approval, the new limits will come into force on 1usb January 2027, when the annual entitlements are reset.
Temporary event notices, or TENs, are a means of authorising licensable activities on a temporary basis without the need to obtain or permanently vary a premises licence. Those activities may include the sale or supply of alcohol, regulated entertainment or the provision of late-night refreshments. TENs can also be used by premises that already hold a licence but wish temporarily to undertake an activity or operate at a time that is not covered by their existing licence. The system is used by a wide variety of businesses, individuals and community organisations. A TEN might allow a pub or restaurant to hold an additional event, but equally it could support an event at a school, a community centre, a church hall, a wedding venue, a market or a small festival.
Under the changes before the Committee, responsible organisers will be given additional flexibility to respond to local demand and hold more well-run events. The order will support local economic activity, provide new opportunities for communities to come together and remove an unnecessary constraint on business. I am sure that all of us here recognise the contribution made by the hospitality sector, not only to our economy but to our high streets and communities. I do not suggest that this targeted measure will address every pressure facing the sector. However, it is a sensible and proportionate step that will give businesses greater flexibility without requiring a fundamental change to the licensing system.
The limits proposed in this instrument are not untested. Higher thresholds of 20 TENs and 26 days applied temporarily during 2022 and 2023 as part of the response to the economic effects of the covid-19 pandemic. Information available to the Home Office did not identify a significant increase in adverse impacts linked to those higher limits.
The Government have carefully considered the differing views expressed in a call for evidence on licensing reform. Hospitality businesses and trade bodies generally supported greater flexibility. Some local authorities, public health organisations, residents and community groups raised concerns about public nuisance, crime and disorder, public health and additional pressure on local services. We have taken those concerns most seriously. The instrument makes a modest adjustment to the annual limits while keeping the safeguards at the heart of the Licensing Act 2003 firmly in place.
The four licensing objectives—the prevention of crime and disorder; public safety; the prevention of public nuisance; and the protection of children from harm—will continue to apply. The police and environmental health authorities will continue to receive temporary event notices, and they may object where they consider that a proposed event would undermine one or more of those objectives. Where objections cannot be resolved, the licensing authority may, where appropriate, impose conditions on a TEN or issue a counter-notice preventing the event from proceeding. Licensing authorities will still be required to issue a counter-notice where the statutory limits are exceeded.
We should be clear about the limited nature of this change. The instrument does not alter the limits that apply to an individual premises user, whether or not that person holds a personal licence, nor does it change how individual notices or event days are counted. It simply increases the annual premises-level limits by five notices and five days. The instrument applies in England and Wales and makes the necessary consequential amendments to the prescribed TEN forms. The statutory guidance issued under section 182 of the Licensing Act will also be updated to reflect the new limits when the order comes into force. In designing those changes, we have been acutely aware of the need to balance support for businesses with protection of residents and local communities. The order strikes that balance. I commend it to the Committee.
Matt Vickers (Stockton West) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Jardine. On Armistice Day, I begin by remembering all those who served. Many of the community events that this order helps, in Royal British Legion branches, social clubs and village halls, are where our communities come together to remember.
At the outset, I declare an interest as a regular patron of Stockton West’s pubs. We have some of the best—in fact the best—pubs in the country, and they will welcome anything that lets them put on another event and get more customers through the door. So let me be clear: the Opposition support this order. Giving licensed venues, and particularly our pubs, greater flexibility is exactly what the last Conservative Government did when we raised the limits in 2022 and 2023 to help the sector recover from the pandemic. It worked then, and I am glad the Government have recognised that. It is no surprise that a significant majority of hospitality and leisure venues backed the increase in the call for evidence. For a publican planning a beer festival, a charity quiz night or a Christmas market, five more notices and five more days a year really matter.
Of course, there must be safeguards. As shadow Policing Minister, I know how important it is that the police and environmental health authorities can scrutinise notices and step in where an event risks crime, antisocial behaviour or serious nuisance for neighbours, but that has to be balanced against the evidence. When these higher limits applied before, there was no significant increase in adverse impacts and, overall, police forces did not oppose this change in the call for evidence. It is right that we back it, but the order cannot be seen in isolation from what our pubs and hospitality businesses have been through.
In Stockton West our pubs are part of the fabric of the community, from a night out in Yarm to the locals served in Eaglescliffe, Ingleby Barwick, Stockton, Thornaby and our villages. Like a number of hon. Members, I host my own pub awards, and places like the Myton House Farm in Ingleby Barwick show what a pub can mean to a community. They provide local jobs—often a young person’s very first job—support local charities and other local businesses, and bring people together. When a pub struggles, the impact goes well beyond the landlord, and pubs are struggling.
Every week, I hear from businesses that are being absolutely battered. They are paying more to employ people after the rise in employer national insurance. They are paying the price for more red tape introduced by the Employment Rights Act 2025. They are paying more in business rates because the Government cut the relief for retail, hospitality and leisure. In 2023, I led a campaign backed by more than 40 colleagues. It called on the then Chancellor to extend the 75% relief. He did, and this Government cut it.
I know the Minister may point to last month’s Budget. I welcome the 20% cut to pubs’ business rates, but that goes nowhere near far enough to undo the damage already done. The Government’s own figures suggest that only around 10% of pubs would pay no business rates, and what the Chancellor gave with one hand he took back with the other by adding 2p to the price of every pint.
The industry’s own trade body, UKHospitality, says that the sector has lost more than 100,000 jobs in the past two years. That is almost half of all the jobs lost across the entire economy. Those are not just statistics; they are bar staff, chefs and young people losing their first rung on the employment ladder, in a sector that provides almost a third of first-time jobs for 16 to 24-year-olds. The economic note for the order, although based on older data, estimates that each additional temporary event notice generates an average profit of £119, with a range of £105 to £143. That is welcome when margins are this tight, but it does not take an experienced publican to recognise that a few extra events will not pay the additional bills landing on the doormat.
I have two brief questions for the Minister. First, will she publish the evidence from 2022 and 2023 showing that the higher limits did not lead to more crime or nuisance, so that residents and licensing authorities can have confidence in the change? Secondly, will she confirm that the police and environmental health authorities keep every one of their existing powers to make reasonable objections? We support the increased flexibility, but our pubs need more support than five extra events a year. I hope the Minister will keep looking for practical ways in which licensing policy can help pubs, and that she will make the case across Government for tackling the costs that put their futures at risk.
Max Wilkinson (Cheltenham) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Ms Jardine. It is right that the Government are making this change to support our hospitality sector. We hope that it will prevent the absurdity that happened this summer, when the England team played late at night and the Government were required to make a one-off order to allow venues to stay open late. Will the Minister confirm that the order will give some extra flexibility, so that we do not have a repeat of the scenario we experienced before the Mexico game in the summer?
There are, however, general concerns about the application of TENs. They are annually used in my constituency to circumvent licensing laws to allow pop-up sexual entertainment venues. In particular, that happens during Cheltenham race week. If councillors on the local authority reject sexual entertainment venue applications, it is well known that the venues will open anyway, perhaps even in the same place, under TENs exemptions. Those venues then operate to a lower standard of regulation and represent a risk to women—the performers.
The TENs regulations, as they stand, undermine SEV licensing regulations, but Ministers in this Government and the previous one have repeatedly refused to engage. Will the Minister look at how she can amend legislation to close that loophole and to address the gaping hole in licensing regulations, particularly given the ongoing debate about the need to tackle threats and violence against women and girls in general? Will she and her officials meet me to discuss the matter at the very least, to prove that the Government are as good as their word on VAWG?
Ms Julie Minns (Carlisle) (Lab)
I will speak briefly in support of the order, particularly with regard to rural communities like mine in north Cumbria, where it is not that a pub may have closed but that a pub never existed in the first place, so the centre of the community is the village hall. I put on the record my thanks to the village hall committees of Nicholforest, Roadhead and Stapleton, which each run an amazing number of community events throughout the year. This order will be a big boost for them.
I also give credit to the Crossings and the Black Lion, which are more than pubs for the two villages they serve. When there are storms and power cuts, which are sadly too frequent, they are hubs for the community. I very much welcome the order, which is crucial to sparsely populated areas such as north Cumbria. Gathering at a function at the village hall or local pub gives people the opportunity to meet their neighbours.
Jo White
I am grateful for the contributions and comments from hon. Members. I agree with the hon. Member for Stockton West that this order will give our armed services personnel and those who want to participate in Remembrance events greater opportunities to meet together.
Hospitality businesses play an important role in strengthening communities and creating places where people can come together. That is why the Government have delivered permanently lower business rates for more than 750,000 eligible retail, hospitality and leisure properties. We have also provided targeted support for pubs, clubs and live music venues, and are reviewing pub and hotel valuations to ensure that the system is fairer, more transparent and more predictable. We have also invested £10 million through the new hospitality grant scheme to support growth, boost resilience, create jobs and strengthen local economies.
Hospitality businesses continue to face significant cost pressures, and the Government want to provide practical measures that support growth, high streets and local communities. The increase in the number and availability of TENs is a low-burden change that provides additional flexibility without requiring businesses to go through the process of obtaining a full premises licence variation. On the issue raised by the hon. Member for Cheltenham, strip clubs are regulated under different legislation—the Local Government Act 2003—but I will take his point back to the Home Office and ensure that the Policing Minister follows up with him.
I once again thank hon. Members for their thoughtful contributions to this debate. As I have set out, this sensible and proportionate measure will support our hospitality sector while maintaining the important checks and balances that underpin the licensing regime. With that, I commend the order to the Committee.
Question put and agreed to.
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
Hunting Trophy Imports
(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
Graham Stuart (in the Chair)
The House will observe a two-minute silence at 11 am in remembrance of those killed in conflict. The beginning and end of the silence will be marked by the Division bells. I will suspend the sitting before 11 am so that Members can observe the silence. I call Clive Efford.
Clive Efford (Eltham and Chislehurst) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the matter of hunting trophy imports.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stuart. For anyone watching this debate who is unsure of what we are debating today, hunting trophies are taken from animals, usually big game, that are murdered by huntsmen in what is the most despicable form of hunting that remains today. In the words of Sir David Attenborough, trophy hunting is
“what people did in the 19th century. One would have thought people would have got over that.”
To bring their hunting trophies—bits of mutilated animals—back to the UK, the hunters need to obtain an import licence. The UK is among a diminishing number of countries that still license the import of hunting trophies. I know the Minister will agree that we must end the import of hunting trophies, because it was a pledge in the Labour manifesto at the last election. The purpose of this debate is not to convince the Government that the importing of hunting trophies is wrong, but to stress the need for action and to end the constant delays.
We know that those in the pro-hunting lobby are rich, powerful and well-connected. They deploy arguments to confound Governments and defuse arguments against hunting. They claim that it is essential for conservation and for reducing human-wildlife conflict, and that it brings economic benefit to rural communities—but none of that is true. Only last month, the World Wildlife Fund launched its latest “Living Planet” report, and its shocking conclusion was that wildlife numbers in Africa have fallen by 80% since 1970.
The global conservation body, the International Union for Conservation of Nature, says that many species are affected by hunting. CITES, the international wildlife trade body for the convention on international trade in endangered species of wild fauna and flora, tells us that some of the world’s most endangered animals are being shot by trophy hunters, including British trophy hunters.
Adrian Ramsay (Waveney Valley) (Green)
I am very grateful to the hon. Member for securing this debate. The late, great Dr Jane Goodall described trophy hunting as
“unconscionable…utterly cruel…and…disastrous from a conservation perspective.”
Since 2015 we have seen 1,764 trophies from endangered species brought into the UK, including 284 elephant trophies. Does the hon. Member agree that there is strong cross-party support for a ban, and that the need for the Government to bring forward the legislation is urgent?
Clive Efford
Yes, I agree, and I welcome the support of the Green party in urging action on this matter.
Sean Woodcock (Banbury) (Lab)
My hon. Friend is making a powerful speech. I have looked into the question: since the July 2024 general election, 41 permits have been given for the UK, including one crocodile, one giraffe, four hippopotamuses, 21 African elephants, a scimitar-horned oryx, Marco Polo sheep, five lions, one leopard and six bears. Is he shocked by that, and does it not show that the Government need to crack on and implement the promises of their manifesto and ban trophy hunting?
Clive Efford
My hon. Friend is absolutely right—we need to crack on. The examples that he has read out are shocking. We should not countenance that by importing the parts of the animals that have been slaughtered.
LionAid says that hunting endangered and vulnerable species contributes directly to the dramatic decline in their populations by adding an extra mortality factor to the threats already facing them. Stopping hunting will reduce death rates, stabilise animal populations and promote biodiversity. The main international bodies campaigning on this issue are telling us that trophy hunting has nothing to do with conservation, nor does it address wild animal-human conflict. I have seen testimony from local community members of the Maasai, who state that hunting increases the anxiety of wildlife in areas where it is taking place, increasing the likelihood of attacks on humans. There is evidence that, far from reducing incidents of wild animal-human conflict, it makes attacks more likely.
Neither does trophy hunting bring economic benefits to rural communities. In the testimonies that I have seen, members of the Maasai communities talk of families being forced from ancestral lands and, if people resist, beatings and kidnappings—not my claim, but the claim of people from communities being forced from their lands to make way for trophy hunting.
Amnesty International conducted research into forced evictions of the Maasai indigenous people in Loliondo between June 2022 and May 2024. It reported on suppression of protests by Maasai people:
“On 10 June 2022, Tanzanian security forces resorted to the use of excessive force, including using live ammunition and tear gas, to stifle peaceful protests by Maasai residents of Ololosokwan village in Loliondo. The demonstrators had gathered to resist a demarcation exercise by the security forces, who were trying to displace them from their ancestral lands in the name of so-called ‘conservation’. More than 40 people were wounded, others were left homeless, and many were forced to flee the country.”
Tigere Chagutah, regional director of Amnesty International for east and southern Africa, said of the Tanzanian Government:
“It is particularly disturbing that they have carried out these evictions under the pretext of ‘conservation’, while in reality, they have allowed Otterlo Business Corporation to do improper or illegal trophy hunting activities, in clear violation of Tanzania’s Wildlife Conservation laws”.
Otterlo Business Corporation is a trophy hunting company. Far from being of benefit to these people, hunting is taking away their human rights.
I urge the Government not to turn their back on these atrocities. We cannot police what goes on in other countries, but we can prevent our country from being used to encourage human rights abuses by ending forthwith the import of hunting trophies, listening to the people whose communities are being destroyed by the hunting industry and introducing an immediate ban on hunting trophies, with a view to introducing legislation at a later date. That has been done in other countries, and we should not delay.
I have been on safari. I have visited Botswana and Zambia, where I saw wonderful animals in their own habitats. The experience was nothing like seeing captive animals. I was armed—with my camera—and captured moments that will live in my memory for the rest of my life, and I was not alone. Across the safari park, there were hundreds of people in trucks capturing similar experiences. Of course, we left the animals behind for others to see at a later date, rather than killing them and stealing them away for our own gratification. That is the sustainable way for communities to benefit from wildlife and invest in conservation. Trophy hunting is doing the exact opposite.
This is not an issue of people in the UK acting like neo-colonialists. It is for us to choose what we allow to be imported into our country. More than 90% of the British public approve of a ban on animal body parts being imported as trophies. A ban imposed by the UK would have a significant impact on this vile trade. Research by anti-hunt campaigners confirms that some of the world’s leading trophy hunters are British. British trophy hunters have shot the critically endangered black rhinoceros, shot monkeys out of trees and shot African elephants, which are currently the most popular of the various threatened species shot by British hunters. More than half the permits issued by the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs since the 2024 general election were for those magnificent creatures.
That is despite African elephants recently being upgraded by IUCN’s red list. Savannah elephants are listed as endangered and forest elephants are now critically endangered. Yet British trophy hunters are still shooting them for their ears, feet, tails and tusks.
British hunters have also shot giraffes, hippos, leopards and canned lions. Canned lions are born and bred in captivity for the purpose of being shot. The semi-tame animals are fenced in fields from which there is no escape before they are slaughtered. British hunters have shot polar bears, which face extinction thanks to climate change, and Africa’s most endangered big cat, the cheetah, of which 7,000 remain. We know all that because we can see the licences for their body parts to be imported to Britain. It is time to bring this to an end once and for all.
Even Donald Trump’s America will not allow imports of the last three cases I quoted—canned lions, cheetahs and polar bears. That should tell us something. Of all those, the canned lions tell us most about the mentality of the people who hunt. How does someone get a thrill from slaughtering an animal that cannot escape? The word “sport” is often associated with hunting, but how can it be a sport when one side of the game cannot choose to play and does not know it is fighting for its life until it is shot?
Trophy hunting is not about conservation, it does not resolve issues of wildlife-human conflict, and it does not bring economic benefits to rural areas—certainly not in the way that tourism can. Local people have been attacked, their land stolen and their human rights abused. Private companies are stealing their homelands. Britain should not be accommodating this industry.
Will the Minister confirm that legislation to ban trophy hunting imports exists and that officials at DEFRA have drafted it? If Government time does not exist for that Bill, will the Minister pass it to me, so that I can put it forward as a ten-minute rule Bill? The overwhelming support across the House would get it through quickly. Other countries have introduced a moratorium on such imports and legislated later. If Britain cannot do that, will the Minister explain why? Above all, will the Minister accept that there can be no further delay?
Seamus Logan (Aberdeenshire North and Moray East) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stuart. I congratulate the hon. Member for Eltham and Chislehurst (Clive Efford) on securing a significant amount of parliamentary time for this debate.
Most people know of Cecil, the iconic lion lured from a protected area in Zimbabwe, wounded by an American trophy hunter and killed some hours later. Cecil’s death sparked a global outcry and public calls to ban the outdated and inhumane practice of trophy hunting. As the hon. Member said, trophy hunting causes animal cruelty for the purposes of human entertainment and so-called sport. Animals hunted for trophies are shot by inexperienced hunters, and the animals’ suffering is not just celebrated, but incentivised, with some hunters using bows and crossbows to hunt. Animals that are shot but escape can take hours or even days to die in agony.
The trophy-hunting industry is based on an economic model that incentivises the cruel and unsustainable exploitation of wildlife. It conflicts with and undermines the viability of ethical alternatives, including eco-tourism. As the hon. Member described, trophy hunting is not, as is sometimes claimed, essential for conservation. There are many highly successful conservation programmes operating around the world, in countries such as Kenya and Costa Rica, that do not involve killing the animals they are meant to protect. Yet we see organisations such as the Otterlo Business Corporation, based in the United Arab Emirates, making millions from this horrible so-called sport.
I have been contacted by a number of constituents. Like my colleague beside me, the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), I see an awful lot of traffic in my inbox on this topic. The messages all agree that the practice of trophy hunting is deeply cruel and barbaric. In that correspondence, my constituents rightly point out that page 59 of Labour’s manifesto committed to a ban on the import of hunting trophies. On behalf of my constituents, I ask the Minister when that Bill will be introduced. Can she confirm that work has actually begun on such a Bill?
As the practice continues, one British hunter even boasted recently of proudly killing a critically endangered black rhino—one of the rarest and most vulnerable animals on the planet. People across these islands have been waiting for 11 years since the first promises were made to ban the import of hunting trophies. In that time, another 2,000 trophies from animals considered to be endangered by CITES have been brought back to Britain, including the ears of elephants, the feet of giraffes and the entire bodies of bears and monkeys. I am told that these so-called trophies are worthless in their countries of origin and gain value only when imported. That is the key to the legislation promised by this Labour Government.
Across the Atlantic, the vice-president of the United States, J. D. Vance, has met Safari Club International, the trophy hunting group that targets endangered animals including pygmy hippos. The UK Government need to stand against any influence from the White House against proposals for a ban.
The hon. Member for Eltham and Chislehurst mentioned Tanzania during his excellent speech. It is no coincidence that the most recent meeting of the Inter-Parliamentary Union was held in Tanzania. The country is a member of the Commonwealth, yet we hear about human rights violations against the Maasai tribesmen and tribeswomen. These are not minor matters. I am sure he has seen the same footage that I have seen of Maasai tribesmen risking their lives to give evidence of disappearances, murders, forced evictions, the slaughter of cattle, corruption, bribery, false fines and paramilitaries operating on behalf of the Government. There are claims that allowing trophy hunting is all about conservation and reducing human-animal conflict. No, it is not about those things; it is about a multimillion-dollar industry called trophy hunting.
The fact that the 153rd meeting of the IPU was held in Tanzania should be of great interest to us. I have read the report, especially the section on human rights, and there is no mention of trophy hunting. That meeting of the IPU was attended by Mr Speaker. It is about time that the UK Government acted and introduced a Bill to ban trophy hunting imports.
Irene Campbell (North Ayrshire and Arran) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stuart. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Eltham and Chislehurst (Clive Efford) for introducing the debate and setting out the arguments for change so well.
Banning trophy imports was in Labour’s 2024 manifesto and is an incredibly popular topic with the public, as we have heard. In common with other hon. Members, my office receives many emails about the issue. Over 80% of people in the UK are very much in favour of a ban, although I think the number may actually be higher. We know how cruel trophy hunting is: animals are chased for long distances, with many wounded from failed shots, all for the enjoyment of people. Around 400 trophy items have been imported into the UK over the last decade, including from giraffes, elephants, rhinos, lions, cheetahs and more, which is very distressing.
Trophy hunting is also harmful for conservation. The conservation argument for the continuation of trophy hunting is very weak. It is shocking that trophy hunters can still shoot endangered animals, such as many giraffe subspecies that have been declared endangered. Current leopard population sizes are unknown, yet about 10,000 were killed by trophy hunters between 2004 and 2014. Hunters target older males, which are needed for social stability and population health in many animal populations.
Moving away from the topic slightly, it is important to note that Scotland still exports trophy items, which I find upsetting. In 2024, a rural community in Zimbabwe imported a Scottish stag’s head. In Scotland, a red stag can be shot and exported for £500 to £1,250. I know that is not what today’s debate is about, but we should consider discussing it in the future. As well as banning imports, we need to look at banning exports from the UK. We may not have lions and elephants, but we have other beautiful animals, such as many different species of deer. We need to protect wildlife not only abroad but here.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Stuart. I thank the hon. Member for Eltham and Chislehurst (Clive Efford) for showing such passion and determination for bringing about these much-needed changes.
As the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire North and Moray East (Seamus Logan) said, this matter strikes a deep chord not only with my Strangford constituents, but across the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. My constituents have contacted me in large numbers about the archaic, barbaric and utterly indefensible practice of importing hunting trophies from endangered animals into the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
Let us be quite clear: this debate is not about traditional, sustainable hunting for food. If it was, and if people were starving, there could be some justification. It is about the execution of some of the world’s most iconic and vulnerable species for nothing more than a sick thrill, a photo opportunity and a gruesome souvenir to put on a coffee table or to hang on a wall. Society has moved on. What may have been acceptable in the past is certainly not acceptable today, and that is the reality. Yet despite years of promises, manifestos and cross-party consensus in both this Chamber today and the main Chamber, the UK’s doors remain wide open to this vile and barbaric trade.
Recent figures from the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs paint a deeply concerning picture. Between July 2024 and September 2026, the Animal and Plant Health Agency issued no fewer than 41 import permits for hunting trophies, which the hon. Member for Banbury (Sean Woodcock) mentioned in his intervention. Let that sink in: 41 permits in just over two years.
Those permits cover animals that are on the brink of extinction, with some 21 permits issued for African elephants. For the life of me, I cannot understand how anybody would want to shoot an elephant—I cannot get my head around that one. Five were issued for lions and four for hippopotamuses, and there were others issued for leopards, polar bears and rhinos. We see lovely nature programmes on TV where animals roam free, but some men—and probably some women as well, unfortunately—wish to kill them. Every single permit represents an animal that died in distress, often slowly, from blood loss or infection, just so a British hunter could boast about it. It is a national embarrassment that, in 2026, we are still facilitating the decline of these magnificent creatures.
The public support for taking action is overwhelming. Up to nine in 10 British people—almost 90%—want to see an immediate, comprehensive ban on trophy hunting imports. I wish the Minister well in the role she plays—she knows that we wish her the best in what she does—but the Government should take the action that people overwhelmingly want. It will go through Parliament without any hiccups or problems whatever. We have seen private Members’ Bills pass through the House of Commons unanimously, only to be stalled, blocked or run out of time because of a small minority. This is something that 90% of people in the United Kingdom believe should be law.
The current Government made a clear commitment in their election manifesto to ban these imports. Yet—I say this with respect to the Minister and the Government—when asked just last month for a concrete timetable to implement this ban, Ministers provided no dates and no timeline. Today the Minister is in the hot seat: I ask her to give us a timescale, give us a date and tell us when it will happen. The permit flow continues at a rate of nearly two dozen a year while the Government drag their feet.
We cannot allow external pressure from international hunting lobbies or administrative inertia to water down the British people’s standards. We should be leading the world in wildlife conservation, but to do that we must stop giving a green light to the destruction of the world’s biodiversity.
I am not the only one who loves David Attenborough’s TV programmes. They are all about the oceans at the moment, and he has done other wonderful programmes in the past. They motivate us to speak out, and today we are doing that. I urge the Minister to please stop kicking the can down the road. The British public are watching; our constituents demand action. The wildlife of this planet cannot afford any more delays. Give this House and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland a date by which legislation will be introduced, and let us finally consign this cruel trade to the history books, where it belongs.
Ruth Jones (Newport West and Islwyn) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Stuart. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Eltham and Chislehurst (Clive Efford) for securing this important debate.
We have been here before. I am deeply passionate about banning the import of hunting trophies. Indeed, I was proudly part of the shadow DEFRA team that ensured that a commitment to such a ban was included in our manifesto at the last election. Despite that commitment, two years on from the election, we are still yet to legislate for a ban. Indeed, we are yet to see a lot of progress on the broad range of ambitious pledges that the Government made before the last election and in the recent animal welfare strategy.
This is not a new issue—there have been such debates before in Westminster Hall, the main Chamber and the other place—but I believe that we now have the numbers to get this done and dusted in this parliamentary Session. I share the public’s frustration at the delay, which is made worse by the confident knowledge that we have won the argument in the House and among the public. As we have heard, polling consistently shows more than 80% support for banning this outdated practice. Nevertheless, the Government have issued 41 permits to import hunting trophies since the election. That means we are complicit in this vile trade until we do something about it. We cannot afford to wait until the next parliamentary Session for a ban, or to replicate the dither and delay of the Conservatives; we need change now. Any further delay risks this critical legislation being timed out before the next general election. I therefore ask the Minister to confirm that DEFRA will introduce a comprehensive animal welfare Bill next year, and that it will include a comprehensive ban on the import of hunting trophies.
I believe that the case for a ban has been comprehensively and emphatically proven—I am sure my hon. Friend the Minister agrees—so I will focus the remainder of my remarks on why hunting directly undermines species conservation and on how to tackle poaching. Due to the actions of humans, more species are threatened with extinction today than ever before. A major global biodiversity study in 2019, co-ordinated by the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services, found that direct human exploitation of animal populations, such as hunting, has been a major driver of the decline. Despite that, internationally protected species—those protected by the convention on international trade in endangered species of wild fauna and flora, or on the International Union for Conservation of Nature’s red list—remain the focus of trophy hunters. Thousands are killed each year; we have already heard the list.
We cannot turn a blind eye to this crime against nature. The populations of hunted species are declining dramatically, with studies showing that hunting has knock-on effects on animal populations in protected areas. Indeed, local populations have recovered only when hunting bans or moratoria are implemented consistently.
Another myth is that trophy hunting prevents poaching, but they are two sides of the same coin. Permitted and illegal activity are rampant in identified hunting areas. A major example of that is the Selous game reserve in Tanzania, previously the largest hunting area in Africa. Despite its prolific commercial use, 55,000 elephants were poached on the reserve between 2007 and 2014, leading to an estimated population decline of 80%. That prompted the Tanzanian Government in 2018 to accuse hunting companies of being complicit in a national poaching crisis. Shortly afterwards, the northern part of the reserve was designated as a national park, in which hunting was banned.
I pay tribute to all those who have continued to campaign over the years to get this ban in place, including the Campaign to Ban Trophy Hunting. Let us be clear that trophy hunting drives international demand for the body parts of threatened species, whether licensed or poached. That directly undermines global efforts to tackle the illegal trade in animal parts, such as ivory or rhino horns. The only way we can drive down global demand is to end the UK’s participation in this immoral enterprise. That requires a comprehensive ban on trophy hunting imports, and I implore the Minister to bring that forward as soon as possible.
We have been here before. We have had the debate before, we know the arguments and we know what needs to be done. There is cross-party support; we have heard that very clearly today. Please, Minister, let us just get on with it.
Sir Roger Gale (Herne Bay and Sandwich) (Con)
I first commend my friend, the hon. Member for Eltham and Chislehurst (Clive Efford) for the manner in which he introduced the debate and for bringing his personal experience of photo safari tourism to the Chamber. Those of us who have had the privilege of seeing animals in the wild in Africa can only marvel at the experience. It is unlike anything else, and certainly unlike anything that anybody ever sees in a zoo.
There will be an element of repetition in this debate, but the points are worth restating. It is suggested that trophy hunting contributes to conservation and the African economy. That is a myth. When Ian Seretse Khama was President of Botswana he banned trophy hunting and promoted photo tourism. The economy grew, wildlife was conserved and the populations grew. It was a win-win. His successor—wined, dined and probably bribed by Safari Club International—overturned the ban. Tourism fell and wildlife suffered, as did the economy. That classic example kicks the bottom out of the argument that this issue has anything whatsoever to do with anything other than hard cash. It is certainly true that a very small number of very wealthy and corrupt people in Africa benefit considerably, mainly from the United States’ trophy hunting tourist trade.
There is a myth that trophy hunting also involves some kind of macho courage. Men, and occasionally women, go and slaughter wild endangered species. What is courageous about slaughtering an effectively tamed animal that has been bred and fed in captivity, caged in a small area and then murdered so that the killer can have a photograph taken with the carcase and the body parts shipped back home to be mounted on the wall? A yellow streak runs right through those people and they are revolting. It is time that everybody stood up and said so.
In the last Parliament, I had the privilege of chairing the all-party parliamentary group on banning trophy hunting. I applaud the work that continues to be done by Eduardo Gonçalves and his campaign. He has been an absolute stalwart to the cause and he deserves our thanks.
In the last Parliament, two Bills were brought before the House of Commons. One was a Conservative-led Bill, presented by the then Member of Parliament for Crawley; the other very similar Bill was brought by John Spellar, then a Labour Member of the Commons and now Lord Spellar in the other place. Both those Bills went through virtually unopposed, but they were killed off by the neanderthal tendency in the upper House.
With great respect to my friend the hon. Member for Eltham and Chislehurst, the idea that he will present a Bill—I would support that, of course—if the Government cannot find time to do this is a forlorn cause. This has to be Government legislation. I understand that a Bill has already been prepared by DEFRA. The point has been made that it features in the Labour party manifesto, and as far as I can see, there is no reason whatsoever why this measure should not be brought swiftly on to the statute book. It can be done; it must be done. The time is right—in fact, it is beyond time. We may not be able to ban trophy hunting, but we certainly have the power to ban the import of the product of that trade, and we should do so now.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair today, Mr Stuart. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Eltham and Chislehurst (Clive Efford) on his tenacity in pursuing this issue and his speech today. I know the passion the right hon. Member for Herne Bay and Sandwich (Sir Roger Gale) has for this issue and the hours and hours he has spent making the case in such a formidable way, as he has today.
The number of mammals in Africa has dropped 80% in my lifetime. Many are brought back dead to these shores, diminished to rugs and relics for the enjoyment of a few people who take pleasure in presiding over the extinction of some of the world’s greatest mammals. Parliament has long supported the banning of this practice, and it was an honour to serve on one of those Bill Committees when we last sought to legislate. However, that was unsuccessful due to the other place, and this sickening trade continues while other nations have brought it to an end. We should have led the way, not least in the light of the number of people from the UK who hunt. Instead, there has been painful dither and delay. We have to do this in this Parliament.
Across Europe and the world, laws on this are tighter. Britain is one of just four countries that still allow the critically endangered black rhino to be imported from hunts, alongside polar bears, cheetahs, lions, giraffes, elephants and leopards. Animal parts are being brought into the UK under this Labour Government. I urge the Minister to go back to her Department and place an immediate moratorium on the issuing of licences; that would be action before the legislation comes before us. This has to stop. We could see the extinction of some species in my lifetime if we do not. I congratulate the armed forces, who we send to Africa to support the patrolling of some of these reserves. But it seems unconscionable that we also allow the trophies to return to the UK.
We need to address this, but I want the Government to think about going further and making it illegal to advertise safari hunting and for anyone to hunt on those trips. Given the depravity that goes with this barbaric practice, people should face criminal charges. Those who promote the trips should have the full force of the law thrown at them. There is little point in banning the import of so-called trophies when people already have the photos, have destroyed their prey and, in some cases, have left the animals wounded and in pain. We have to stop the shooting and the killing.
The 30,000 endangered animals killed each year, the 10,000 lions killed since Cecil, who we heard about earlier, was brought to our attention, and the 2,800 African elephants killed in 2024 alone—their population has declined from 20 million at the start of the 19th century to just 400,000 today—show that our failure to legislate over decades has let the trophy seekers off the hook. Add to those the monkeys, gorillas and baboons, which share our DNA and are now the second most hunted species. That is shocking.
Labour Ministers need to get a ban over the line. When I was the shadow Secretary of State for DEFRA, we committed to an immediate ban as soon as we came into government. Two years of this Labour Government have passed, and we are halfway through this Parliament. We have to legislate. If the Government are looking for a quick fix, we can make the parliamentary time. Ban the imports, the adverts, the hunters and—one more—the publication of photos. We must make it a criminal offence for a UK resident to celebrate their kill on social media or in an advert—no carve-outs, no exceptions. There is no need for a new King’s Speech or manifesto—86% of the public support a ban. We must not delay, but be proud to see it through.
Imogen Walker (Hamilton and Clyde Valley) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stuart. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Eltham and Chislehurst (Clive Efford) for securing this important debate and bringing us all together.
Yesterday, I visited a drop-in for assistance dogs. Two dogs were available for photographs—and, frankly, to pet. That was smart of the organisers—the queue was out the door, and they were running out of leaflets. The organisers knew that we are a nation of animal lovers, and that that is reflected in Parliament. However, that is not yet reflected in our action on trophy imports. Whatever our intent and feeling, and however much work has been done behind the scenes, we are falling behind. The US, Canada, Australia and many more have implemented trophy bans, and we have not. In the past decade, almost 2,000 animal trophies have been brought into the UK. These are endangered animals—body parts of species we cannot afford to lose and individual animals whose lives were much too precious to be ended for entertainment.
There is no public opposition to a ban—the vast majority of people in the UK support one—and there is little political opposition. Virtually all Members of Parliament support a ban. Issues that unite us in this place to that extent are vanishingly rare. We should value that and celebrate it; we should take the chance to do the right thing—an act of strength and kindness in a hard world. On so many issues, the drama and division make a lot of noise and take up a lot of space. We all participate in that—it is one of the ways that we make things happen—but a consensus does not mean a lack of importance, urgency or determination. It means quite the opposite. This is an issue on which people who agree on little else have come together, and that is significant.
We really are a nation of animal lovers. On this issue, there is a simple way to reflect that in our laws: we must make parliamentary time to ban the import of hunting trophies, and to ensure that we play no part in the exploitation, suffering and violation of innocent animals. I will be so proud to support that ban when it happens. We have the power to do this. Let us use it soon.
Dr Danny Chambers (Winchester) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Stuart.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Eltham and Chislehurst (Clive Efford) on his very good speech on this important subject. A few weeks ago, I was in Zambia for the first time, as part of a global public health trip to look at HIV, malaria and tuberculosis control. While we were driving between villages, we got to see elephants and giraffes just walking along the side of the road. It was an absolute dream come true for me. I pay tribute to the right hon. Member for Herne Bay and Sandwich (Sir Roger Gale), who is an absolute hero of mine for the years he has campaigned on animal welfare issues, including many years on this subject specifically.
I very much appreciate and recognise the work that has been done on this issue, and the public agree. Some 84% of responses to the Government’s consultation were in support of a ban on hunting trophies entering or leaving the UK. Despite overwhelming support, successive Governments have failed to act and get a ban over the line. When in government, the Conservatives promised a ban and held a consultation, but when the legislation passed through the Commons, opposition to it in the Lords used deliberate delaying tactics to prevent it from becoming law. The Labour party promised to ban trophy imports in its manifesto, yet we are still waiting. There is no Government Bill, no clear timetable, and no mention of trophy hunting in the animal welfare strategy.
We should be clear that our animal welfare laws should be written here in Westminster, not in Washington. We know that the Trump Administration have written to the UK Government urging them to reconsider approaches to trophy hunting. We should not allow pressure from the United States to determine how we protect endangered animals worldwide.
I find it genuinely difficult to comprehend the mindset of somebody who travels thousands of miles, pays tens of thousands of pounds and then deliberately kills one of the most magnificent creatures on the planet simply for the pleasure of doing so, especially when that creature may well be endangered. Like all vets, I have had to end the lives of animals on many occasions—more than I can remember. We do it out of compassion and to relieve suffering. Even when it is the kindest thing to do, no matter how many thousands of times we have done it, taking a life is never something that we take lightly. I cannot understand someone who wants to take the life of a magnificent, healthy wild animal and then bring it back and mount its head or body part as a trophy. What kind of achievement is it to kill an elephant? What is there to celebrate in shooting a lion or a rhinoceros? What sort of person, having killed an endangered animal, then wants to see that body part mounted on a wall?
The British public want a ban, the House of Commons has already voted for a ban and the Government committed to a ban in their manifesto. I urge the Minister to please bring forward legislation, stop any delaying and let us show the world that Britain wants absolutely no involvement in trophy hunting.
Dr Neil Hudson (Epping Forest) (Con)
It is a great pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Stuart. I congratulate the hon. Member for Eltham and Chislehurst (Clive Efford) on securing this important debate and setting out the importance of the issue.
I declare a strong personal and professional interest as a veterinary surgeon and a fellow of the Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons. I thank the many organisations that have campaigned against trophy hunting for many years, including Four Paws, Humane World for Animals, Born Free, the Conservative Animal Welfare Foundation and the Campaign to Ban Trophy Hunting. I am pleased to be here as the shadow DEFRA Minister speaking in strong support of a ban on the importation of hunting trophies.
We have heard many powerful contributions from all parties. The hon. Member for Aberdeenshire North and Moray East (Seamus Logan) introduced us to the story of Cecil, whom I will talk more about. The hon. Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Irene Campbell) is a wonderful, proud animal welfare advocate in the House, and I consider her a close colleague and friend. She is a member of the all-party parliamentary group for animal welfare—in fact, three officers of that APPG, which I chair, are present. The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) talked about the majesty of the animals that have been hunted, while the hon. Member for Newport West and Islwyn (Ruth Jones) talked about the importance of her work when she was in the shadow DEFRA team.
Like my veterinary colleague and friend the hon. Member for Winchester (Dr Chambers), I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Herne Bay and Sandwich (Sir Roger Gale) for his animal welfare advocacy from the Conservative Benches. He worked very closely with our late friend Sir David Amess, and I pay tribute to him. My right hon. Friend talked about his passion for conservation and the importance of photo tourism, which I will touch on soon.
The hon. Member for York Central (Rachael Maskell) talked about the splendour of the African mammals that have suffered and mentioned the importance of our UK armed forces working to help conservation efforts. Finally—I do not think I have missed anyone—the hon. Member for Hamilton and Clyde Valley (Imogen Walker) spoke with huge passion about how we are very much a nation of animal lovers. It sounds like a cliché, but it is so true. This is an issue that unites us across the House, so I thank her for saying that.
Last year, we marked 10 years since the tragic killing of Cecil the lion—a horrific event that caught the world’s attention and ignited global outrage and the campaign to ban the import of hunting trophies to the UK. Yet despite the outcry, the global trophy hunting industry has continued unabated. Sadly, Cecil’s story was not unique: every year, trophy hunters kill thousands of these precious and majestic animals around the world. Trophy hunting is a barbaric and outdated practice that should be consigned to the history books. These majestic animals should be shot only with cameras, not with lethal weapons.
Since the 1980s, an estimated 25,000 hunting trophies from slaughtered animals have been imported to the UK. The practice of bringing animal carcases or parts thereof back to Britain is outdated and unnecessary. Ending this trade would send a clear message that the United Kingdom does not support the killing of precious, majestic and often endangered wildlife.
In the UK, we have some of the highest animal welfare standards in the world, and I am proud that our country has shown global leadership in that regard. I am proud of the Conservatives’ work in government to advance animal welfare standards and strengthen protections for animals at home and abroad. This included banning the export of live animals, including cattle, sheep, pigs and horses, for fattening or slaughter in the Animal Welfare (Livestock Exports) Act 2024, which I hope will survive next week’s EU reset; banning the keeping of primates as pets; passing the Pet Abduction Act 2024; increasing the maximum prison sentence for animal cruelty from six months to five years in the Animal Welfare (Sentencing) Act 2021; and enshrining animal sentience in UK law through the Animal Welfare (Sentience) Act 2022, thereby establishing the important Animal Sentience Committee so that any new legislation must pay due regard to animal welfare. We must remember that Cecil the lion was a large, majestic, magnificent, sentient animal that was hunted and senselessly and horrifically struck down.
I was extremely proud to co-sponsor the Animal Welfare (Import of Dogs, Cats and Ferrets) Act 2025 with my veterinary colleague and friend, the hon. Member for Winchester. It was a landmark piece of legislation designed to tackle illegal, disturbing and unethical pet importation practices such as the importation of under-age puppies, heavily pregnant dogs or cats, dogs that have been horrifically ear-cropped and cats that have been barbarically declawed—senseless procedures that have no clinical indication whatsoever. The Dogs (Protection of Livestock) (Amendment) Act 2025, introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Chester South and Eddisbury (Aphra Brandreth), the shadow Nature Minister, strengthened penalties and expanded police powers to tackle livestock worrying.
Back in 2018, the Conservative Government passed the Ivory Act 2018, one of the world’s strongest ivory bans, providing vital protection to elephants at risk. Later, as a shadow Minister, I was proud to speak on behalf of His Majesty’s most loyal Opposition in support of the expansion of that Act to provide protection to narwhals, orcas, sperm whales and hippopotamuses. As I said at the time:
“Animal welfare and protecting and conserving precious animals and wildlife across our planet is something that unites us in humanity”—[Official Report, Sixth Delegated Legislation Committee, 11 December 2024; c. 4.]
across the House.
The United Kingdom can again use its global soft power and put pressure on countries that, horrifically, continue to kill animals such as whales and dolphins. We must tell those countries to stop these barbaric practices once and for all. Now is the time to get serious about protecting the world’s wildlife and habitats, protecting animals, halting further damage and restoring what has been lost. The UK has a significant part to play in that work.
In 2019, the Conservative Government held a consultation on the scale and impact of the import and export of hunting trophies. It received more than 44,000 responses, 84% of which were in favour of a ban on all hunting trophies entering or leaving the UK. In response, the Conservative Government rightly set out plans to ban imports of hunting trophies from endangered and threatened species.
Sadly, it is now more than six years since a UK Government first committed to a ban on the import of hunting trophies. It is also six years since the IPBES—the intergovernmental science-policy platform on biodiversity and ecosystem services—global assessment reported that around 1 million plant and animal species are believed to be at risk of extinction. Yet to this day, trophy hunting continues, with the most recent available statistics showing a huge increase in the numbers of trophies imported.
I was very disappointed when, in the previous Parliament, the Conservative-led Bill to ban hunting trophy imports failed to proceed after receiving unanimous support and passing through the House of Commons. So much work had been done to get to that position—consultations carried out, the Bill drafted and parliamentarians across the House briefed—but we now find ourselves, five years on, having to think about reintroducing legislation. I am sure we all feel this is deeply upsetting and frustrating.
I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Exmouth and Exeter East (David Reed), who brought the Hunting Trophies (Import Prohibition) Bill back to the House in the 2024-26 parliamentary Session, where it again received cross-party support. But it now feels like groundhog day, because once again we are waiting for legislation to come forward. The previous Conservative Government started the process; the baton has now passed to the current Government, who also had a ban in their manifesto.
There is a saying: “The best time to plant a tree was 20 years ago; the second-best time is now.” The same is true here. We should have taken action sooner after Cecil the majestic lion was killed, but we can and must take action now. I urge the Government to act; will the Minister say how and when they will do so? Together, parliamentarians and animal welfare organisations—all of us as a human race—must do something powerful and great for animals. Let us get a ban over the line and consign this practice to the history books.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Jenny Riddell-Carpenter)
It is an honour to respond to this important debate under your chairmanship, Mr Stuart. I start by thanking my hon. Friend the Member for Eltham and Chislehurst (Clive Efford) for securing it and all hon. Members for their thoughtful contributions. We are used to hearing different views from different sides of the House, but I have heard the overwhelming consensus in the room today.
This is an issue that understandably generates strongly held views, both within Parliament and beyond, and raises important questions about the role that the United Kingdom should play in helping to protect biodiversity around the world. I therefore welcome the opportunity to clearly restate the Government’s position, which, as my hon. Friend rightly acknowledged, formed a clear part of our manifesto commitment in 2024. The Government have made a clear commitment to ban the import of hunting trophies from species of conservation concern, and we remain committed to delivering on that promise.
The United Kingdom has a long history of championing global action to protect endangered species, demonstrated most recently by our chairing of the standing committee of the convention on international trade in endangered species of wild fauna and flora—CITES—our leadership and engagement at the convention on biological diversity COP, and our more recent work under the UN convention against transnational organised crime to tackle the serious and organised crime that drives the illegal wildlife trade. Our approach to hunting trophy imports forms part of that wider commitment to protecting biodiversity and ensuring that international wildlife trade does not undermine the conservation of threatened species.
Irene Campbell
What has come over very clearly during the debate is that we are looking for a timeline. Can the Minister confirm whether one is forthcoming?
Jenny Riddell-Carpenter
My hon. Friend raises a critical point, which I acknowledge was the key and overwhelming theme of the debate. I have 10 minutes to talk and there are some other points that I want to make first, but I will come to it in a moment.
Ensuring that the UK plays its part in reducing pressures on species of conservation concern and supporting wider global efforts to protect biodiversity remain core commitments. I know that Members, campaigners and the public are understandably keen to see progress. Indeed, this issue has been debated in Parliament on a number of occasions and there is considerable public interest in it. The Government recognise that strength of feeling. Our commitment has not changed, and we will deliver a ban when parliamentary time allows. We are working to ensure that we are in a strong position to move forward when the opportunity arises.
Jenny Riddell-Carpenter
I will not, because I am addressing the point of timing, but I will come back to my hon. Friend if she would like to intervene in a moment.
My hon. Friend the Member for Eltham and Chislehurst, the hon. Members for Aberdeenshire North and Moray East (Seamus Logan) and for Strangford (Jim Shannon), my hon. Friend the Member for Newport West and Islwyn (Ruth Jones), the right hon. Member for Herne Bay and Sandwich (Sir Roger Gale) and my hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton and Clyde Valley (Imogen Walker) all raised very valid questions about timings. The timetable for any Bill will depend on wider parliamentary scheduling. Our aim is clear: to introduce the Bill at the earliest opportunity and within this Parliament.
Jenny Riddell-Carpenter
I want to continue to make this point clearly, if I may.
A number of Members, including my hon. Friend the Member for Eltham and Chislehurst, asked how we have progressed. We have undertaken considerable preparation and are ready to move quickly when the parliamentary timetable allows. I hope that reassures Members.
Jenny Riddell-Carpenter
Let me continue for one more moment.
I recognise that Members and stakeholders will want to see faster progress, but our objective is not simply to put legislation on the statute book that is not fit for purpose. We want to deliver a ban that is robust, enforceable and capable of securing positive conservation outcomes.
Jim Shannon
I understand the process only too well, but I encourage the Minister and the Government, because we all want to ensure that they get a win-win out of this. Eighty-six percent of the people of this nation want this to happen. That has to be a win-win for the Minister, for the Government and for all of us.
Jenny Riddell-Carpenter
I thank the hon. Member for his intervention and for his earlier contributions. I hope I have made it clear that this formed a part of our manifesto commitment and we remain committed to it. I understand and recognise the public sentiment that he references. It remains a core part of our commitment, and we are fully committed to bringing forward legislation when the parliamentary timetable allows.
Imogen Walker
There have been clear cross-party calls today and in the lead-up to the debate. If the Minister is not able to give us a timetable here and now, will she commit to updating us at the earliest possible opportunity when this will be progressed in Parliament and when parliamentary time will be found?
Jenny Riddell-Carpenter
I thank my hon. Friend for her intervention and for her speech earlier. I reiterate that we will bring forward the legislation when the parliamentary timetable allows. I am sure that we will be able to bring forward further announcements in due course.
Clive Efford
With all due respect, “when parliamentary time allows” is not good enough. We have had too many delays on this issue. Other countries have introduced a moratorium, with the intention to legislate later. Will the Minister explain why we cannot do that, so that we can move urgently and quickly, here in the UK?
Jenny Riddell-Carpenter
I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. A moratorium was the theme of many hon. Members’ contributions today, and I understand the strength of feeling behind that. We do not have the legal powers to stop trophy imports without primary legislation. That is why we are focused on doing this properly, so that the ban is clear, enforceable and robust, which requires primary legislation.
Jenny Riddell-Carpenter
I will make some progress, if I may.
I recognise that this is not always a straightforward issue. That is why we want to continue to engage with stakeholders representing different perspectives and to consider the evidence carefully as we develop a robust policy. That engagement has deliberately sought to build a balanced picture of the evidence, to ensure that the policy, when it comes, is robust, defensible and deliverable.
Ruth Jones
With all due respect, as my hon. Friend the Member for Eltham and Chislehurst (Clive Efford) said, we have had the debates and arguments. We know what the stakeholders say and believe. We know we need action. My fear is that the planned legislation will come too late. It is no good bringing it in at the fag-end of this Parliament because we will not get it enacted. That will be a tragedy for us and the animals.
Jenny Riddell-Carpenter
I thank my hon. Friend for her contribution. I hear the issues and the sentiment loud and clear, both in this room and from the public. Forming the right robust legislative process is different from having a debate. We have to get the legislation tight, robust and defensible. That work is ongoing and it requires engagement and evidence. We have committed to delivering that when the parliamentary timetable allows. I hope that provides reassurance that work is ongoing to build the most robust and defensible legislation.
Several hon. Members rose—
Jenny Riddell-Carpenter
Apologies, but I need to make progress.
My colleague Baroness Hayman has engaged directly with representatives of affected range states, including in discussions with representatives from southern African countries—Botswana, South Africa, Zimbabwe and others—where concerns have been raised about the implications of an import ban for wildlife management, conservation and livelihoods. At the same time, she has met extensively with organisations campaigning for stronger action on trophy hunting, bringing together conservation and animal protection organisations to hear their evidence and concerns.
Although we may not be able to reconcile every view on this deeply contested issue, we can and must ensure that the policy we bring forward is informed by evidence, by the experience of affected countries and communities, and by those organisations that have rightly and tirelessly worked on these issues for many years. Engagement will continue as we work towards legislation that delivers our manifesto commitment.
Rachael Maskell
I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. A point I raised in the debate was that the Government could place an immediate moratorium on the issuing of licences. Will she go back to the Department and raise that with civil servants, and ensure that the Government put that immediate moratorium in place?
Jenny Riddell-Carpenter
I thank my hon. Friend for her contribution. I think I have made clear the point on a moratorium: we need primary legislation to ensure that we bring in a ban that is defensible and robust. I am happy to meet her to discuss the specific point she raises in further detail, but I hope I have been clear that we stand by our manifesto commitments and we are committed to bringing forward a ban when the parliamentary timetable allows within this Parliament. I am happy to meet colleagues to discuss this in further detail.
Sir Roger Gale
This really is not good enough. The point has been made over and over again in this Chamber. All this work has already been done, twice. The Bill has been approved; the Minister’s Department has a drafted Bill ready to go. There is ample parliamentary time for the Government to introduce the legislation now. The time for kicking the can down the road is over. It has to be done now.
Jenny Riddell-Carpenter
I thank the right hon. Member for his contribution. I hope I have been clear that we are committed to delivering this. We are committed to making sure that we bring forward the most robust piece of legislation, which is defensible and workable, and it will happen when the parliamentary timetable allows within this Parliament.
Let me conclude by saying that protecting species is central to our wider ambition to halt biodiversity loss and safeguard nature for future generations. We are determined that the UK should play its part, and we will deliver on our commitment to ban hunting trophy imports in a way that is robust, enforceable and delivers positive outcomes for conservation. I once again thank my hon. Friend the Member for Eltham and Chislehurst for bringing this important issue before the House, and all hon. Members who have contributed to the debate.
Clive Efford
I am grateful to the Minister for her response but, quite frankly, it really is not good enough. Who are the Government afraid of? Such a tiny minority of people would be affected by a ban on hunting trophy imports. The Government have overwhelming power behind them; they could defend their position.
On the idea of “robust” legislation, what is so sensitive about this piece of legislation compared with any other? Are we to expect that the Government will introduce a perfect Bill that will not be amended in any way? Over my years in this House, I have seen Bills that have had hundreds and hundreds of Government amendments made to them after they have been brought before the House. What is the debate that is taking place within DEFRA that is making it fearful of bringing forward legislation? That concerns me greatly. This issue has been debated widely, over a great many years; there is not much more that we can learn from either side of the argument. This is the time that the Government have to act and move forwards.
I am grateful to all hon. Members who have spoken this morning—we have to keep the pressure on—and to all the campaigning groups. I have mentioned some of them, but I thank in particular the Campaign to Ban Trophy Hunting, which supported me in preparing for the debate. The Government have to listen. This is not just about the animals themselves; it is becoming more and more apparent that it is a human rights issue as well. The time has come for the Government to stand by those people, stand up for the animals that are being slaughtered and take forward this legislation.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered the matter of hunting trophy imports.
Neurodiversity: Ministerial Role
(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
Graham Stuart (in the Chair)
I will call Adam Dance to move the motion; I will then call the Minister to respond. I remind Members that they may make a speech only with prior permission from the Member in charge of the debate and from the Minister. As is the convention for 30-minute debates, there will not be an opportunity for the Member in charge to wind up. We will still have to finish strictly on time at 11.30 am.
Adam Dance (Yeovil) (LD)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the potential merits of appointing a Minister for Neurodiversity.
About 20% of the population are what we would call neurodivergent, yet there is no one person working across Government Departments to ensure that the needs of this 20% are considered. Neurodivergence is an umbrella term that describes people who think, learn, process, inform and interact with the world differently from the normal. It captures both medical and non-medical differences, including attention deficit and hyperactivity disorder, autism, dyslexia and so many others. I myself am very neurospicy, as I call it. Although each of those traits and learning difficulties is unique, we use the term not only because there are overlapping traits but because people with ADHD and autism, for example, share a lot of challenges with their health, school and work.
For years, the main challenge when it comes to Government has been an unacceptable lack of understanding of neurodivergence. Policymakers just have not got it and have made life harder, not better, for that 20% of the population. In fact, that lack of understanding is why I got involved in politics in the first place, campaigning to stop the closure of the youth club that helped to save my life when I was struggling with severe dyslexia, ADHD and severe bullying. It just made no sense to me that the Government and the then Conservative-run Somerset county council could not understand the damage they were doing by cutting youth service funding by 100% in Somerset, particularly for neurodiverse people.
Even after we saved my youth club, the feeling that decision makers just do not understand has followed me through politics. It is what drove me to stand for election and to be in this place today. For far too long, it has felt like the world has been set up by someone else, and like neurodiverse people are an afterthought.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
I commend the hon. Gentleman for all that he does and for how he has been able to overcome these difficulties. Many neurodivergent people report being misunderstood by those around them, leaving them feeling isolated and without adequate support. A dedicated Minister for neurodiversity could help drive a more targeted approach. Does he agree that appointing a dedicated Minister would help to prevent neurodivergent people from falling through the cracks and would ensure that they receive the understanding that they very much deserve, which would help them in their lives?
Adam Dance
I completely agree, and I thank the hon. Member for bringing that up. I will come to lots of those points later.
Coming into this Parliament with a new group of MPs and a new Government, I was really hopeful. I thought we would get things done across the parties. There are some fantastic MPs and Ministers who really do get it, but there are still far too many in power who are just as clueless as the Tories were when they tried to shut my youth club. I have been in meetings where Ministers have suggested that ADHD is just a mental health illness, which is not the case, and in meetings and debates where MPs and others have leaned into toxic narratives about ADHD or autism being a myth. While these seem like lots of insignificant things, when they are put together, we get a culture that leads to policy that is not just bad but damaging for neurodiverse people.
In fact, in many ways I think we have gone backwards from when my generation was at school. Under-investment in diagnosis and support pathways in the NHS means that people face a two-year minimum wait for ADHD and autism assessments if they are lucky, and way too many miss out on support and treatment.
A whole generation have gone without any identification or support at all. Research by the charity The Hidden suggests that between 250,000 and 600,000 autistic adults over the age of 50 in England have never been diagnosed. The education system is not set up to support neurodiverse people. Years of under-investment in local councils, which are for some reason responsible for special educational needs and disabilities support, has led to a crisis in Somerset, where more than 85% of children wait 20 to 52 weeks to get their education, health and care plan implemented, if they are lucky, and so many others are going without support at all.
Meanwhile, vocational, technical and creative pathways are being shut down, and there is too much focus on exams. Spelling, punctuation and grammar marks in non-English exams just punish you for having a learning disability. A lack of investment in training and support for teachers has seen them struggling to support pupils or just not understanding them altogether.
Arm’s length bodies are just as bad. Recently removed training material from Ofsted on Prevent suggested that a person with autism is more likely to be a dangerous extremist because they may develop special interests, which is insane. My assistant’s younger sister is autistic; her special interest is frogs. How does that make her more likely to be a terrorist? Guidance like that means that people with autism are more likely to get those types of referral; it does not address the factors that actually lead to radicalisation.
It is not just about healthcare or schools. The failures spread to the workplace. You are 80% more likely not to be in education, employment or training if you have SEND. There is still too little understanding of how to adjust and make the most of neurodiverse people’s skills. Sadly, what all this means is that you are far more likely to end up in prison or taking your own life if you are neurodivergent. Without the support I had, that would have been me.
What is most frustrating of all is that none of the work across Government to solve this is joined up well enough. You do not stop struggling with dyslexia, ADHD, autism or any other neurotype difference when you leave school, believe me. Being neurodivergent means that you will experience our education, health, justice, work and pension and Government systems differently for your whole life. That is why we have so many campaigners out there fighting for support for neurodivergent people: because after years of terrible policy, too many people feel like I did as a young person, which is that decision makers just do not get it and cannot be trusted.
A Government are supposed to serve all their people, and yet we are failing to provide representation for 20% of the population. Think about it like this, Mr Stuart: if I owned a landscaping company and ignored the needs of 20% of my customers by using plants that they were allergic to and making it impossible for them to get around their gardens, I would rightly be out of business. The Government will probably not go out of business—well, I hope not, at least as long as Liz Truss is not allowed anywhere near the Government again—but their failure to properly represent the needs of 20% of the people they were elected to represent is more than just a policy failure. It is damaging our democracy.
What we need in Government is someone whose job it is to listen, to understand and to represent the needs of neurodiverse people. It is not about special treatment, but about making sure that politics—big and small, national and local—do not unfairly impact neurodivergent lives, as they so often do. Given all the big challenges in Government, considering the appointment of a neurodiversity Minister could not come at a better time. Our health service is being restructured, our local integrated care boards are being merged, while their budgets are being cut, and our SEND system is undergoing generational change. The Milburn and Timms reviews will see an overhaul of work and benefits support, local government is being totally restructured, and our justice and prison system is undergoing a serious overhaul as it faces collapse.
Despite the fact that these are the systems that educate, diagnose, support and rehabilitate neurodivergent people, no one in Government is currently responsible for neurodivergent people through this transition. We all know what institutions, politics and Government are like: without someone with authority in the room making the case for neurodivergent people’s needs, they will be drowned out and forgotten. That cannot be allowed to happen any more. Ultimately, that is why we need a Minister in the Cabinet Office for neurodiversity.
A Minister for neurodiversity is obviously no silver bullet. No one policy solution will fix this, but what we need is one officer holding responsibility for making sure we join up all the different solutions: someone who is working across Government and is able to hold Government Departments, bodies and local authorities to account, but also someone who can co-ordinate and help Government bodies to get it right. It is not that there is some evil group of neurodivergent-hating elite we need to get rid of. Well, I hope not; that would be way too easy. There are so many fantastic people across Government, at all levels, who want to do right by neurodivergent people, but right now our institutional culture across Government just does not give policymakers the space or the tools to consider neurodivergent people properly.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
I congratulate the hon. Member on securing this important debate. I recognise that our society and Government are set up in a neurotypical way, as opposed to looking at divergence. I congratulate the Government on all the work they are doing around young people, but we know that we need to look at a life course. I support the hon. Member’s call to ensure that we have a cross-cutting mainstream focus on neurodivergence, but also that we embed that into the policies and the structures of our society.
Adam Dance
I thank the hon. Member for her intervention; I totally agree with you—
Adam Dance
Sorry—I totally agree with the hon. Member. It is really good to have cross-party support. Just as the Prime Minister has argued that we need mayors as a force to drive change in local authorities’ areas, we need one person in Government to drive positive change on neurodiversity policy.
You are probably thinking, “Adam, that is all great, but how are you actually going to do it?” To put it simply, I am asking the Government to do three things: first, to make way for a new Minister by restructuring current posts or amending the Ministers of the Crown Act 1975 to expand the number of Ministers we can have; secondly, to give the new Minister funded statutory powers, by presenting Parliament with a cross-departmental strategy for neurodiversity that the Minister would be responsible for implementing, because this does not work if the Minister does not have teeth; and thirdly, to appoint a Minister for neurodiversity, which is probably the most difficult and political part of the whole process.
That is obviously easier said than done, but, as with most things, the answer is there: it just requires political willpower. Look at the new Minister for Artificial Intelligence post in the Cabinet Office. We see this time and again with Government: we are told, “Oh, that is too complicated,” or, “Oh, that wouldn’t be practical,” but then the public kick up a fuss, and, suddenly, it is not too difficult and can actually be done rather quickly. Let us not forget that this is about 20% of the public.
Obviously, though, the Minister today cannot snap her fingers and promise to do this—I would love it if she could. That is just not how this works, and I get that. Instead, I ask the Minister to commit today to starting the process by having civil servants review cross-departmental policy on neurodiversity and the merits of a neurodiversity Minister, and then to meeting me and campaigners to talk through the findings with us and hear our suggestions in more detail.
I know that this proposal is ambitious, but it is the lack of ambition on neurodiversity policy that has got us into this mess in the first place. It is only with bold action that we are going to make a difference, because I do not want to live in a country where the next generation of neurodiverse kids feel as I did when they tried to shut my youth club, and where decision makers just do not get it and just do not care. I thank everybody for listening.
The Parliamentary Secretary, Cabinet Office (Sally Jameson)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Stuart. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Yeovil (Adam Dance) for securing this important debate, and to other Members for their contributions.
I know that the hon. Member speaks truly from his own heart and his own experience about these issues. I assure him that I take his contribution very seriously, and I will make sure that the points he has raised are heard across Government, particularly in the Departments for Education, Health and Social Care, and Work and Pensions. It is so important that we have people like him in this Parliament, making sure that voices and experiences like his are heard not just here but across the country. I thank him for that.
Jim Shannon
One of the good things about the hon. Member for Yeovil (Adam Dance) introducing the debate is that, by showing others out there with disabilities how they can progress in life and what they can achieve, he will now become, perhaps unknowingly, an inspiration to them.
Sally Jameson
I agree. The hon. Member for Yeovil is a role model for many thousands, possibly millions, of people out there who might think that their neurodiversity could hold them back from office: he is showing that that is absolutely not the case. He is using his role in Parliament to make sure that these issues are brought to the forefront of Government, the media and so on. I congratulate him on doing that, both today and more widely in this place.
Supporting people who are neurodiverse is of critical importance to the Government. The hon. Member is right to say that we do not have a Minister solely responsible for neurodiversity. He will know that ministerial portfolios and the machinery of government more generally are matters exclusively for the Prime Minister himself, but I want to assure him that this is a core focus of Government policy across Departments. I would actually expect—as I am sure Ministers and people more widely would as well—that neurodiversity and the issues that affect neurodiverse people need to be woven into all Government policy across all Departments, regardless of whether there is a Minister. We should expect that and hold the Government and ourselves accountable to ensure that that is happening.
The particular issues raised today are overseen by the Secretaries of State for Health and Social Care, for Education, and for Work and Pensions. Those Secretaries of State and their Departments work closely together, and the Government continue to work on the needs of people who are neurodiverse.
The independent review into the prevalence and support for mental health conditions, ADHD and autism found that ADHD and autism referrals and waiting lists for diagnosis have “risen dramatically”. We want to ensure that people of all ages get the right support and, crucially, get it at the right time, without having to wait for a diagnosis before they can get access to help.
The Government recognise that waits for ADHD and autism assessment remain too long and have a huge impact on individuals and their families. We all know that from our constituency inboxes.
Adam Dance
One of my projects last year was a ten-minute rule Bill for universal screening, which I have been working on and talking to Ministers about. It would screen everyone at primary school to pick up their neurodiversity. Does the Minister think we can reopen the discussion on that?
Sally Jameson
I cannot make a decision on that here, but I will take it back to the relevant Departments—I suspect that is a question for the Department for Education—and ask that they have another look at the hon. Member’s ten-minute rule Bill.
Support is too often organised around diagnosis, rather than people’s needs and circumstances. People seeking help increasingly present with overlapping needs that do not simply fit into a single diagnosis. Better understanding of that is important. As set out in the Government press release following the independent review, we are moving to a more needs-led model, providing earlier access to information, support and appropriate intervention based on individual needs and circumstances without and before a diagnosis, while also improving timely access to high-quality diagnostic assessment when required.
Moving on to the SEND reform element, which the hon. Member for Yeovil touched on, we remain committed to ensuring that every child has the best start in life with accessible and local support in their community and ending the need for families to fight for help. Since consulting on our SEND reforms, we have worked with partners across education, health and local government to build on the foundations for long-term improvement.
Funding allocations and guidance that have been previously announced include £4 billion of investment to enhance inclusive provision across early years, schools, colleges and local authorities. Alongside that, there is another £3.7 billion in capital funding between 2025 and 2030, which will create 60,000 new specialist places. Through local SEND reform plans, we are ensuring every area delivers targeted local support. We will publish the consultation response in due course and will introduce legislation on this at the earliest opportunity.
As announced in the King’s Speech, the education for all Bill will be introduced in this parliamentary Session to make mainstream education more inclusive and ensure all children get the right support early on. The Bill will help children and young people and is backed by more than £200 million for SEND and inclusion training. New requirements in the SEND code of practice will ensure that settings train all staff in SEND and inclusion more widely.
Adam Dance
That £200 million is welcome, but it is very little money per school or per teacher. It is a good start, but we need to go further. I have one more question, while I am on my feet: will the Minister agree to meet me to discuss a neurodiversity Minister in the Cabinet Office?
Sally Jameson
I will ensure that someone meets the hon. Member. I am not sure whether that meeting will be with me; I need to clarify responsibility and portfolio on that, because it is technically the Prime Minister who would appoint the Minister for neurodiversity, but I will come back to the hon. Member on that and arrange an appropriate meeting.
The hon. Member touched a bit on employment and neurodiversity, though I appreciate there is more to be said. It is incredibly important, particularly as we await the Milburn review and things we will be doing more broadly to support the population. Good work, good health and wellbeing for neurodivergent people is incredibly important. In 2025, the DWP launched an independent panel of academics with expertise and lived experience of neurodiversity to advise us as a Government on boosting awareness and inclusion in the workplace.
The panel considered why neurodivergent people often have poor experiences in the workplace and have a low overall employment rate. We welcomed the publication of the report by the expert academic panel on neurodiversity, alongside the Government response, on 2 October. The report highlights the valuable contribution that neurodivergent people make to our workforce and sets out recommendations to improve their recruitment, retention and progression in the workplace. Neurodivergence should not hold anyone back from achieving their potential in their workplace, or in their career more widely, as the hon. Member has shown. Our response sets out our work across Government with our stakeholders to increase work opportunities, and our continuing work focusing on needs-led support and inclusive workplace design to help employers better attract and retain talent.
We have also announced a training package, backed by £200 million of new funding, to ensure that teachers, educators, teaching assistants, support staff and leaders across early years, school and, importantly, post-16 settings can be trained to support pupils with SEND and neurodivergence and to help them with employment readiness.
I am conscious of time, but I will touch on the inclusive mainstream fund, which forms part of the Government’s commitment to building a more inclusive mainstream education across the country. More than £500 million per financial year over the next three years will equip schools and, importantly, colleges, as well as early years settings, with up-front funding to help them to have a more inclusive design. Building on the consultation on SEND reform, the fund addresses historical gaps in early support to help to ensure that every child and young person benefits from high-quality adaptive teaching. Settings can use the IMF alongside core funding allocations to strengthen inclusion for all pupils. It focuses on a needs-led approach rather than a rigid set of boxes that need to be ticked. It will allow teachers, colleges and employers to focus on what the people they work with need.
The independent review led by Peter Fonagy has challenged us to think differently about supporting people with mental health and neurodivergent needs. We want people of all ages to have the right support at the right time without waiting for a diagnosis before they can access help. Through our forthcoming mental health strategy, we will set out how we will move towards earlier needs-led support and better integration between mental health and neurodevelopmental pathways. We want to provide earlier access to information, support and appropriate interventions based on individual needs, while improving timely access to high-quality diagnostic assessments when required.
I end by repeating the Government’s commitment to support people living with neurodiverse conditions. I again thank the hon. Member for Yeovil for securing a debate on this important issue. I know that he will continue to raise this issue, not just in proposing a Minister for neurodiversity, but in championing the needs of the neurodiverse population and what they require from the Government to ensure that they can be successful and thrive, not just in early years and school, but in higher education, employment and, later in life, in social care. I will ensure that everything the hon. Member raised in the debate lands with the relevant Government Departments. I will take away his request for a meeting to discuss further how we can have better representation in Government. We are committed to ensuring that the right services are available at the right time for the right people; our support for that will not waver.
Question put and agreed to.
Rosebank Oilfield: Government Policy
(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
Carla Denyer (Bristol Central) (Green)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered Government policy on Rosebank oilfield.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Twigg. Tomorrow, the Prime Minister will stand in front of world leaders at the COP31 climate summit. He is expected to say that this is a pivotal moment for global climate action. He is right, and that takes me straight to the heart of today’s debate. If the Government are clear that climate change is no longer a distant threat and that fossil fuels are driving climate breakdown, why are they not clear that green-lighting Rosebank, the biggest undeveloped oil and gasfield in the North sea, is a complete dereliction of duty? My constituents are clear about the risks of more fossil fuel extraction.
Carla Denyer
Not at this moment—I will get a bit further in my speech. The risks include more of the heatwaves that killed thousands of people in the UK this summer, the worst drought in 50 years and floods that could hit this winter, driven by a dangerous combination of climate change and what is set to be the most extreme El Niño we have ever seen. Every fraction of a degree of global heating makes the future less safe, and every drop of oil pumped from Rosebank contributes to that less safe future. Today, I call on the Government to make the right choice and reject Rosebank. Let me lay out my case.
Dr Rupa Huq (Ealing Central and Acton) (Lab)
We all want growth but, given that Rosebank is primarily for export and that oil and gas revenues are expected to plummet to nearly zero by 2030, does the hon. Member agree that even the economic case does not stack up?
Carla Denyer
I do agree, and I will be coming to that point in just a moment. First, I will start with the climate and nature case against Rosebank. If it is given the green light, its carbon emissions are projected to total a devasting 254 million tonnes. That is equivalent to 70% of the UK’s entire emissions last year and greater than the combined carbon dioxide emissions of the 73 lowest-emitting countries and territories.
Bell Ribeiro-Addy (Clapham and Brixton Hill) (Lab)
Does the hon. Member agree that those nations did the least to cause this crisis, but are already paying for it in floods, failed harvests and debt, and that Britain should not hand the global south yet another bill for our choices?
Carla Denyer
I absolutely agree. In fact, it is the human rights and international justice aspects of this that turned me into a climate activist in the first place.
That devastating 254 million tonnes is a climate-wrecking volume of emissions. If Rosebank is allowed, it would keep producing oil until 2052, polluting our atmosphere after the date by which the UK is legally committed to net zero.
Carla Denyer
I will make a little more progress. The International Energy Agency and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change are clear: opening new oil and gasfields is incompatible with limiting warming in line with the Paris agreement. This is the key point in this debate: globally, even if we only extract all the oil, gas and coal in existing wells and mines, we will release seven times more emissions than would keep us within 1.5° of warming. That means that there must be no new oil and gas extraction at all.
Douglas Lumsden
Would the hon. Member accept that, if we do not produce our own oil and gas, it is not that we are going to use any less of it, but that we are going to import more oil and gas from other places with a higher carbon footprint?
Carla Denyer
Unfortunately, it sounds as if the hon. Member might be suffering under some misapprehensions about the facts of the case. The fact is that this oil and gas would be sold on international markets, as I will come on to in just a moment.
Warinder Juss
Employment in oil and gas has fallen significantly over the last decade, but the UK is forecast to be reliant on oil and gas until 2050. Does the hon. Lady agree that a just transition requires the Government to do their utmost to create high-quality clean energy jobs as quickly as possible, so that we can not only challenge the climate crisis, but keep our skilled workers in employment?
Carla Denyer
I agree absolutely; it is almost as if the hon. Member has been peeking at my notes. I am now going to plough on, because quite a lot of interventions have predicted something I am about to say.
I have put the climate case against Rosebank, but the economic case is equally powerful. Rosebank will not bring down my constituents’ energy bills, nor anyone else’s. New oil and gas production in the UK will do nothing to affect market price here, which is set internationally and has been driven up by Donald Trump’s war in Iran. As Equinor has confirmed, Rosebank’s oil will be sold on the open market. Hon. Members should not just my word for it: a former Conservative Energy Secretary admitted that new oilfields will do nothing to bring down the price of energy. The current Energy Secretary has said that
“if you care about affordability, North Sea does not solve that problem for you”.
By contrast, renewables are already saving us money. Since the start of the Hormuz crisis, record-high UK wind and solar generation has avoided the need for gas imports worth £5.9 billion. That is what real energy independence looks like. Although I welcome the progress and ambition on renewables that we have seen under this Government, it does not and never will justify the extraction of new fossil fuels. Every day, I am emailed by Bristol Central constituents struggling with the seemingly never-ending affordability crisis, and energy bills are now set to jump by another £276 from January.
Catherine Fookes (Monmouthshire) (Lab)
I thank the hon. Lady for securing this debate. Last summer, Monmouthshire saw wildfires, and before those it saw floods. Does the hon. Lady agree that people such as my constituents need more affordable renewable energy to secure their homes—not investment in the vested interests of oil companies?
Carla Denyer
I agree. The Prime Minister has rightly promised action to address the cost of living. To do that, he needs to break the link between fossil fuel prices and electricity prices by getting off oil and gas, rather than deepening our reliance on fossil fuels, when we are precisely in a fossil-fuelled cost of living crisis.
Carla Denyer
I am going to make a bit more progress. Why on earth has the Chancellor been given a veto on new offshore wind projects if they do not lower bills, when he is not applying the same test to decisions about climate-wrecking fossil fuels?
That brings me to jobs. In the last 10 years, the number of jobs supported by the UK oil and gas industry has more than halved, despite the previous Government approving hundreds of licences. The reality is that 93% of viable oil and gas reserves in the UK North sea have already been extracted, so jobs will continue to decline unless we change direction. By investing in renewables industries and helping workers to secure well-paid, unionised jobs in those industries, the Government can build a secure future for workers.
Currently, an offshore wind turbine contains three times as much material from abroad as it does from domestic manufacturers. Public investment in UK manufacturing capacity for offshore wind alone—never mind the other technologies—would generate 10,000 direct and more than 13,000 indirect jobs.
Carla Denyer
I am going to make a bit more progress. Those potential jobs are why, last year, I tabled the Energy and Employment Rights Bill, outlining key steps to future-proof jobs in the energy sector. They are also why I am working alongside trade unions to call for statutory rights to union reps for future-proofing jobs, to create a legal requirement on employers to include trade union reps in workplace planning related to decarbonisation. That, not Rosebank, is how we build a stable, future-facing economy.
The economic case against Rosebank goes to the heart of our tax system. We need to know whether the Government questioned the assumption in the Office for Budget Responsibility’s autumn Budget papers that Rosebank will be approved, and whether the Treasury has a predetermined view. The Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero alone must take the decision on Rosebank. Any indication that the Government are relying on it for tax revenues could be considered indirect pressure. Could that risk making the decision unlawful?
In her approval of Jackdaw, the Secretary of State herself concluded that she
“has not been able to form a view in which she has sufficient confidence”
regarding the tax receipts from the gasfield. In other words, the Government do not think that they are going to raise much tax from the gas drilling for which they have just given the go-ahead. The OBR has pointed out that, even with its assumption that Rosebank is approved, the combined effect of the expiry of the windfall tax and the declining nature of the North sea basin means that tax receipts from the oil and gas sector as a whole are projected to be “close to zero” by 2031-32. Compare that with the global damage that would be caused by emissions from Jackdaw and Rosebank, which are estimated to cost between £170 billion and £483 billion, and the £13.3 billion of UK public money that has already been spent, incredibly, on tax breaks for fossil fuel firms between 2019 and 2026. That is enough money to insulate every home in fuel poverty in England, which would be the real way to bring down bills.
Adrian Ramsay (Waveney Valley) (Green)
My hon. Friend is making an incredibly powerful case, particularly about the economic importance of investing in renewable energy and the fact that the Rosebank oilfield would not bring down our bills. Does she agree that it was particularly disappointing that, in the recent Budget, the Government cut back on funding for home insulation measures—measures that, alongside renewable energy, are where the Government should be focusing their attention?
Carla Denyer
I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend. As he and I have said many times, the cheapest energy bills are those that people do not have to pay, because their home is so well insulated that they do not have to buy that energy in the first place.
Carla Denyer
I am beginning to wrap up now.
If Rosebank is fundamentally incompatible with a liveable planet, will not bring down energy bills, will not future-proof North sea jobs and represents a significant drain on public finances, why is it even being considered? Analysis of Government meetings shows that, between July 2024 and June 2026, UK Ministers had 200 meetings with the main firms involved in Rosebank and Jackdaw and their lobbyists—about two a week. The only ones who benefit from more oil and gas are the fossil fuel companies making record profits. Shell, part owner of Rosebank, doubled its global profits in the year from September 2025 to an astounding £8.1 billion. We cannot cave in to its lobbying now.
Green-lighting Rosebank would also risk breaching the Government’s sanctions on illegal Israeli settlements in the west bank. Ithaca Energy, which holds a 20% stake in Rosebank, is controlled by Delek Group. Last year, that group was included in a United Nations database of firms that allegedly provide services or utilities to support illegal settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territories. That, too, must be a factor in any decision on Rosebank.
As I draw to a close,
“the idea that we will say, ‘Look, there is a climate crisis; this will not make any difference to our energy security; the Energy Secretary says that it will not cut bills; it is not the answer for the jobs of the future; but we will carry on doing it anyway’, is climate vandalism.”—[Official Report, 22 January 2024; Vol. 744, c. 50.]
Those are not my words, but the words of the now Foreign Secretary, the right hon. Member for Doncaster North (Ed Miliband). He is completely right. The decision whether to approve the climate-wrecking Rosebank oilfield is a defining moment for this Government and this Parliament. I hope that today’s debate will help to ensure that, when we look back, we can do so with pride at a decision that will protect us all and stop Rosebank in its tracks.
Several hon. Members rose—
Derek Twigg (in the Chair)
Order. It will not have escaped right hon. and hon. Members’ notice that this is a very busy debate. It is unlikely that every Member will get in; however, I am imposing a two-minute time limit. If Members intervene, I may not call them during the debate. I intend to call the Front-Bench speakers at 3.34 pm.
Graeme Downie (Dunfermline and Dollar) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Twigg. I congratulate the hon. Member for Bristol Central (Carla Denyer) on securing this debate. I may disagree with her, but it is very valuable that we continue these conversations.
Too often, this debate is framed as a binary choice: people are for oil and gas, or they are for renewables. I spent more than a decade working with renewables businesses before I came to this place, and I can say that that is a false choice. The question is not whether we decarbonise; it is how we do it and who we take with us. Let me be clear: this is not an issue for Aberdeen or even just for Scotland. While in my constituency I have businesses such as TechnipFMC and Oceaneering, which employ hundreds of skilled people in subsea engineering and manufacturing, we are nowhere near the North sea’s front door, and that story is repeated across the country.
We will not decarbonise our economy or remain world leaders in decarbonisation by switching off one industry and hoping that another switches on. The engineers, welders, technicians and businesses—that whole ecosystem—will build floating offshore wind, carbon capture and the grid of the future. Those skills do not sit in a drawer waiting to be used. If the work goes, the skills go, and the capability goes with them. In Fife, we know very well what happens when an industry closes down without a plan. When pits closed, whole communities lost not only their jobs, but the sense of who they were. For communities across the UK, energy is part of their identity and their pride, and it should be part of their future.
The Government took the right decision on Jackdaw, and the Treasury’s own forecasts have assumed that Rosebank would go ahead since at least 2019. Through the energy wealth fund, that revenue can be reinvested in a low-carbon future. Think of a young person, in my constituency or across the country today, deciding whether to start an engineering apprenticeship. For generations, oil and gas has been the front door to that technical career; many who walk through it go on to offshore wind, nuclear, renewables, defence or other industries, but they need to see that that door is open. Close it, and we do not just lose an industry—we lose the next generations of engineers that every other industry depends on.
Douglas Lumsden (Aberdeen South) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your stewardship, Mr Twigg. My constituents will be brutally disappointed with the opening of this debate, and probably with many of the contributions we will hear later. In my constituency, we are proud of our legacy in oil and gas, and we are proud of the jobs. These are good, high-skilled jobs, many of which cannot and will not be replaced by the energy transition, but this is not about jobs just in Aberdeen: as we have heard, thousands of jobs all across the country are supported by continuing oil and gas production. Forcing my constituents out of their jobs and then importing the hydrocarbons they were previously paid to extract is cruel and unnecessary. I do not understand why so many people do not get that argument.
Rosebank is desperately needed. It is needed for the almost 3,500 jobs that depend on it, and more importantly, it is needed as a sign that the North sea is open for business. It is needed for the tens of thousands of supply chain jobs up and down the country. We all know that the North sea is a declining basin—we have heard it already; we get that. It will not last forever, but it would be economic suicide to pay for more imports rather than extract ourselves, with all the jobs and tax revenue that that brings.
Not only does the hon. Member for Bristol Central (Carla Denyer) suggest that we miss out on billions of pounds in tax revenue, which could fund any ideas that she cares to go for, but it is clear that not supporting Rosebank means supporting higher carbon emissions. We know that importing more oil and gas to fuel our country is expensive and more carbon intensive. This is insane. Why are we even considering this? I am sure that many Members in this House would be quite comfortable buying Putin’s oil instead—I say, “No, no, no.” Every barrel that we can produce locally benefits us here.
Richard Foord (Honiton and Sidmouth) (LD)
Before the Government even consider taking revenue from Rosebank, does the hon. Member think that they should be increasing taxes on the British insurance companies that are currently providing maritime services to the movement of Russian gas?
Douglas Lumsden
I am here to discuss oil and gas, Rosebank and what is most important for my constituents in Aberdeen South. We have the industry; we should just get on and do it. We need Rosebank, and we need more exploration for the benefit of my constituents and of the nation. It is a mystery that this Government and the naysayers, such as the Greens, keep telling us that the North sea is empty, yet our neighbours, the Norwegians, keep drilling. If it is empty, why ban new exploration?
This Government need to approve Rosebank now. We cannot wait any longer. Let us get Britain drilling again.
Rachael Maskell (York Central) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a great pleasure to serve under you in the Chair, Mr Twigg.
Rosebank will have a direct consequence for climate destruction and human life. It will impact trust in Government and weaken our global standing as leaders in climate protection. It will release 254 million tonnes of carbon dioxide, which is 70% of the current emissions for the whole UK. While previous permissions were granted, the courage of Greenpeace and Uplift in seeking a judicial review caused Government to rightly pause. Now, we have an opportunity to set the future pathway for energy.
As for Rosebank itself, the scale of gas and oil will have real climate impact, but it will also have an impact on human life. We know that, together, Jackdaw and Rosebank will lead to an additional 32,000 heat-related deaths by the end of the century and will have other impacts on the global climate. We know from the Supreme Court judgment that it is so important to assess the future impact of Rosebank, which is why the examination has been so important. It is ultimately a quasi-judicial decision, but it must also take on board the real crisis we face with the climate today.
The submission has been made, and it sits on the Secretary of State’s desk. The question is whether or not the future of our planet matters more than jobs, which could be better invested in the renewable sector for the long term. We need to ensure that we have sustainability for our planet.
Rachael Maskell
I will not. It is really important that we make the right decision today in this debate, but also that the Minister does when he gets the opportunity.
John Milne (Horsham) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Twigg.
We are reaching a point where a decision must be made about Rosebank. There are arguments on either side, but not every argument is equally valid. It is not true that Rosebank will help with energy security; the oil it produces will be overwhelmingly exported. Rather, we should invest in industries that actually do contribute, such as solar and wind. It is not true that Rosebank will reduce energy prices, and it is disappointing that people still put out that message for public consumption when it is quite clearly flat wrong. It is also not true that if we do not drill this oil, the Norwegians will. It is a geologically separate field; if we do not drill there, nobody does.
On the other side of the argument, drilling at Rosebank will not necessarily increase UK use of fossil fuels in absolute terms, although it would, as others have said, add to the total amount of world fossil fuel production. The international COP process is focused on reducing fossil fuel demand and not supply, and perhaps that is a problem. A further argument has been made that, although the state does not own Rosebank oil, it will benefit from taxation, but that is actually a very difficult thing to calculate. Profits can be offset against development and decommissioning costs, and depending on the exact timescale, much of the potential tax revenue might never reach the public purse.
John Milne
I will not. A new taxation regime, the oil and gas revenue levy, begins in 2030. Equinor will make most of its investment while the generous reliefs are switched on, but will generate most of its profit after 2030 when the windfall tax is no longer in effect. I ask the Minister what assumptions are being made regarding tax revenue—the rationale, not just the amount. Does the Minister accept that returns could be greatly reduced by clever accountancy? Can we be sure that Rosebank does not end up as a gigantic tax dodge?
Anna Gelderd (South East Cornwall) (Lab)
Meur ras, Mr Twigg.
The climate and a thriving and resilient economy in which the cost of living works for my constituents are not independent issues; they are two sides of the same coin. These types of political and economic issues are national, international and deeply personal. My granddad Frank never got to know his Dad, a miner who died in an industrial accident deep under the North sea. The history of our national energy policy, from the industrial revolution onwards, is written by the jobs, families and people who built our great fossil-fuelled economy. However, we must now forge a new, practical path—one that includes the current use of oil and gas but ends at the prize of a secure, richer, renewable energy-fuelled Great Britain.
We live in an unprecedented era in which our energy security is more vital than ever and in which jobs and wealth must be protected and economic opportunities seized. On both of those points, Rosebank fails. The UK has sovereign rights to explore resources in the seabed of our continental shelf, but rights over the seabed do not give us sovereignty over the waters above it. Our energy security must consider that point. The biggest economic opportunity lies in renewable energy. I do not want to see us fall behind.
Alice Macdonald
On that point, does my hon. Friend welcome today’s announcement of a £12 billion deal for Vanguard wind farms off the coast of Norfolk, which will help support 2,400 jobs? Does she agree that our focus should be on investing in renewable energy projects and unlocking jobs for constituents such as mine?
Anna Gelderd
I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend, who is doing great work on behalf of her constituents. I do not want to see the UK fall behind while other countries race towards maximising the economic benefits of the energy transition. Government decisions send important signals to investors. Clear, consistent support gives renewable energy businesses and their supply chains the confidence to invest, expand and create the skilled jobs here in the UK. As the Government, we must provide stability and choose our signals to the financial markets wisely. There are opportunity costs in not doing so.
This weekend I talked to a local resident called Dave, who told me that his renewable energy business, which previously had over 80 orders a month, fell to just five when the then Prime Minister David Cameron indicated that he was minded not to support onshore wind. A few offhand comments—not legislation or Government investment, just signals from a Prime Minister—had a material effect on a thriving local business in Cornwall and on our ability to build the industries that we need for the future. We must do better. We must give renewable energy businesses the confidence to grow. We must give the North sea workforce the support to continue to build a more secure, cleaner and resilient energy future.
Graham Leadbitter (Moray West, Nairn and Strathspey) (SNP)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Twigg.
The SNP’s approach to Scotland’s energy future is grounded in pragmatism, climate responsibility and protecting our industrial workforce. We recognise the inescapable reality that the economy will continue to require oil and gas for years to come as we transition towards net zero. That is why we do not support the Government’s blanket ban on new exploration licences as set out in the Energy Independence Bill.
On major developments such as Rosebank, our position is both principled and rigorous. Decisions cannot be made on the basis of political posturing. They must be assessed individually against statutory emissions targets and climate compatibility. Where domestic production carries a lower emissions footprint than imported fossil fuels, it is entirely rational to consider it while demand remains. For as long as we need oil and gas, it is also ethically questionable to offshore our responsibilities to countries that have poorer environmental controls and, in many cases, very poor employment rights.
Graham Leadbitter
No, I will press on. Scotland’s renewable potential is extraordinary. Our nation leads the world in offshore wind deployment, with renewable generation breaking new records. Yet our constituents are forced to endure the cruel absurdity of living in an energy-rich nation while paying some of the highest energy bills in Europe and suffering widespread fuel poverty.
For half a century, Westminster has treated Scotland’s energy reserves as a Treasury cash cow, squandering vast revenues rather than investing them for the lasting prosperity of our communities. We are determined that the north-east of Scotland, long the oil and gas capital of Europe, must become the net zero capital of the world. Yet our communities are caught between two failed Westminster extremes. Under the Conservatives, 70,000 jobs were lost while they pushed empty “Drill, drill, drill” slogans without building the renewables bridge. Now, Labour is pursuing the opposite extreme—imposing exploration bans and extending a punitive energy profits levy beyond all justification, threatening to repeat the industrial devastation that Thatcher inflicted in Scotland’s heartlands.
Graham Leadbitter
No.
Neither ignoring the cliff edge nor pushing workers straight over it are serious policies—
Al Carns (Birmingham Selly Oak) (Lab)
Before I address what the hon. Member for Bristol Central (Carla Denyer) has passionately talked about, I want to be very clear that I agree that climate change is a security threat. It is something that we must collectively address, and I support the effort to reduce emissions. However, the hon. Member’s narrative worries me. I hear a great deal about what we should stop doing and far less about the economic, ecological and security consequences of those decisions.
Britain emitted 367 million tonnes of greenhouse gases last year. That sounds like a lot, but it represents less than 1% of total global emissions. That is less than 1%. That does not mean that we should abandon our responsibility to reduce them—far from it. But we must be honest about the scale of our contribution, the cost that we ask people to bear up and down the country and whether our policies actually reduce global emissions or simply move them elsewhere.
The reality is that Britain will continue to need oil for decades. That cannot be refuted. Refusing to produce it here does nothing on its own to eliminate that demand—it just does not. It simply increases our reliance on imports, which can carry their own environmental costs. In 2024, Britain spent nearly £52 billion importing oil and petroleum products, leaving us with a net trade deficit of £24 billion. Before Putin invaded Ukraine, Russia supplied around a third of our diesel imports. It could be thought that that experience might have taught us something, yet we are remarkably relaxed about making Britain more dependent on overseas supplies.
Next, there is the export argument, which we have heard a lot. We are repeatedly told that North sea oil is exported as though that settles the argument. Much of it goes to European refineries and returns to Britain as fuel. Commissioned research estimates that around 65% of UK continental shelf crude oil ultimately reaches the British market directly or through European refining. My final point is that before we embark on this journey, we must look people and businesses in the eyes and tell them that we are going to cancel it all.
Derek Twigg (in the Chair)
Excellent; that was right on time. I call Jim Shannon.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Twigg. I thank the hon. Member for Bristol Central (Carla Denyer) for setting the scene so well. She knows that she and I have very different opinions, but I respect her views and hope that she will respect mine as well.
The Minister and Government need to get the balance right. Other Members have spoken about that, and I recognise that there is significant demand. The Jackdaw gasfield was approved, as it should be, but we also need 10 billion barrels of oil between now and 2050.
Derek Twigg (in the Chair)
Order. Can the hon. Gentleman speak towards the mic?
Jim Shannon
Excuse me—can I start again? [Laughter.] Only joking.
Businesses, community and charity leaders all recognise the benefit of domestic production. Over 2,000 of them have added their support for Rosebank because of its importance. This oilfield will support hundreds, if not thousands, of jobs. On Monday, the Energy Secretary stressed that affordability is her “overriding objective”. With January expected to bring the biggest rise in bills in four years, action must be taken now to protect energy affordability. Rosebank is part of the solution to stability: by making better use of our own natural resources, we will no longer be largely beholden to geopolitical tensions in the middle east.
Closer to home, in Northern Ireland, energy prices continue to climb—that is why I am here as the MP. Home heating oil prices across Northern Ireland are rising, with 68% of households depending on it, and in my constituency of Strangford and on the Ards peninsula, that figure is 80%. That is why I welcomed last month’s long overdue decision to approve gas production at Jackdaw, which will secure energy supplies for homes and businesses.
Does the Minister agree that strengthening our energy security is of the utmost urgency, and if so, that lessons must be learned from the impact of the Jackdaw delays? Does he also agree that support should be given to the proposed Rosebank oilfield immediately? I urge the Minister and Government: do not delay taking decisive action to reduce our reliance on volatile international energy markets.
Apsana Begum (Poplar and Limehouse) (Lab)
Like many of my constituents, I am alarmed at the suggestion of even more carbon extraction from the North sea. Like them, I find it hard to believe that we can be considering this after the summer we had. According to researchers, this year’s heatwaves in the UK caused around 4,500 deaths, and the UN is now saying that we are on track for a 2.8° temperature rise.
The lowest-polluting countries are facing the sharpest impact, from Nepal to Bangladesh, Somalia and more. We are staring at climate breakdown, and it seems like madness that we are even having a conversation about more carbon extraction and more oil drilling, or about slashing the electric vehicle quota and unleashing more fossil fuel consumption. All of that is on top of the decisions to approve Jackdaw and cut heat pump subsidies.
Progress has been far too slow, but to reverse the gains that have been made on the UK’s green transition should be unthinkable and will not be forgiven by future generations. At this critical point, I worry that senior politicians have decided that the climate is a foregone conclusion and that we should take a lead from Trump and “drill baby, drill” for some short-term gains—but those gains would be diminishingly small.
Apsana Begum
I will not be giving way.
We know that Rosebank and Jackdaw drilling will have no impact on prices at the pump or on household bills. Short-term gains are quickly overshadowed by the costs of the clean-up bill and climate damage. Rosebank will not provide long-term security for North sea jobs. We know that these projects—Rosebank and Jackdaw—will generate an awful lot of money for Shell and Equinor, so much so that big oil is threatening a capital strike. After hundreds of meetings with fossil fuel lobbyists, I suggest that the Minister should spend less time listening carefully to them and more time listening to constituents like mine who are telling us clearly, “No new oil and gas.”
Richard Tice (Boston and Skegness) (Reform)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Twigg. Oil and gas is energy treasure. That is the reality. Oil and gas represents 80%-plus of all the energy that we use currently, and that will be the case for many decades to come—way beyond 2050. Any nation blessed with such energy treasure is trying to extract it as fast as they possibly can, and we should do the same. Quite rightly, the Foreign Secretary has allowed the extraction of oil and gas in the Falkland Islands, so the idea that we would not allow the extraction of oil and gas in the North sea, just outside the wonderful nation of Scotland, is completely bizarre.
The numbers are fantastic: more than £8 billion of GDP; 2,000 jobs during construction; and 500 jobs permanently—those are big, serious numbers.
Richard Tice
I will not give way, if that is okay, because so many want to speak.
That is hundreds and hundreds of jobs directly and indirectly. Frankly, it is financially gross negligence not to extract that energy treasure. That is the simple reality.
The myth is that because the oil is exported, we should not extract it. Guess what? It goes to refineries in Europe, because we were stupid enough to shut down our refineries in the past 20 years, only for some 65% of what is exported to come back to the United Kingdom, as a parliamentary Committee heard recently. We need to take advantage of this treasure.
Richard Tice
I will not give way, because others want to speak.
We have a growth crisis. This is a great opportunity for jobs, activity and investment. It is treasure, and we should extract every last barrel, every last drop.
Torcuil Crichton (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve with you in the Chair, Mr Twigg. I thank the hon. Member for Bristol Central (Carla Denyer) for securing this timely debate. I begin by agreeing with her and acknowledging the facts that our climate is warming, our seas are rising and our landscape is on fire. That is why this Labour Government are pushing ahead with the transition, a move that, like the wildfires in the Cairngorms, is transforming the landscape and marine horizon in front of our eyes.
I am proud to be part of a Labour Government who are committed to renewables. There are 145,000 jobs in renewables, which is more than in the North sea now, at under 21,000.
Torcuil Crichton
I will not be giving way. That is why I support a pragmatic transition, utilising domestic oil production, rather than importing it, and supporting Scottish skills and jobs as we move the workforce across to renewables.
Let us be clear eyed about this: Rosebank, of course, would support jobs—as the hon. Member for Aberdeen South (Douglas Lumsden) pointed out—and yes, it would support £24 billion in economic activity and give us tax revenues, but let us not pretend that approving Rosebank will save the North sea, or that its refusal means the end of the North sea story. The North sea is a declining basin, with more than 70,000 jobs gone under the previous Government, and, realistically, jobs will continue to move away from the North sea as the sector is wound down.
Transition, however, is not the same as abandonment. That is why the energy wealth fund announced by the Chancellor and moving jobs across are so important. Contrary to what the hon. Member for Moray West, Nairn and Strathspey (Graham Leadbitter) said, I believe that there should be no new licensing under the Energy Independence Bill. That makes sense. We will need gas for 2045, but without new licences, the reduction in North sea gas production will be 97%, and with new licences, 95%—we are fighting about that 2% in the transition.
We should actually be using the success of the North sea oil and gas sector in the growing renewables sector, and using the skills and supply chains developed over decades to give us the next generation of energy jobs. The worst thing we could do at this time is to switch off the North sea and to be foolhardy in our haste. The transition from oil and gas to clean energy has to be done, but we need to support the energy workforce, our domestic energy security and the transition.
Helen Hayes (Dulwich and West Norwood) (Lab)
I am very grateful for the opportunity to speak in this debate on behalf of my constituents, who want to see our Government continuing to take the strongest possible approach to the climate emergency and continuing to show leadership on the global stage.
We are debating these issues as communities across our country are gathering to watch the national emergency briefing on the climate emergency. I have already attended a number of screenings of it, and I will attend another in my constituency next week. The briefing has been prepared by climate scientists and it is stark. I have not heard any dissent from this science. We are already in the danger zone of global warming significantly above 1.5°. The climate destabilisation that follows from this level of global warming will bring chaos and hardship to every corner of the globe.
It is already happening. The bleakest statement from the scientists in the film is that our current climate, which is characterised by increasing floods, heatwaves and storms, is as good as we will know in our lifetime.
Helen Hayes
I will not give way, because of the number of people who wish to speak.
Things will inevitably continue to get worse. But the national emergency briefing is also hopeful: it tells the story of places such as Curitiba in Brazil, where city leaders, working intentionally over many decades, have transformed a city of 3.5 million people into a healthy, sustainable and resilient place. It also documents the ways in which investment in carbon reduction and climate adaptation creates jobs, contributes to economic growth, saves lives, improves living standards for everyone, and saves the huge costs of climate emergency responses and disaster recovery.
My constituents care deeply about the climate emergency: they want to see fossil fuels remain in the ground; they want there to be no drilling at Rosebank; and they want to see our Government continuing to lead on the global stage on the energy transition. I urge the Minister to take the views of my constituents and feed them back to the Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero as she makes this crucial decision.
Luke Akehurst (North Durham) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Twigg.
Today, I urge the Government to take the same common-sense approach to the decision over Rosebank that it applied to the decision over the Jackdaw gasfield. Over its lifetime, Rosebank would contribute an estimated £24 billion to the UK economy and on average it would support over 500 UK-based full-time jobs, with £500 million making its way every year to the Treasury in tax revenue by the end of this Parliament. As someone who spends a lot of time thinking about the threats posed by Russia, Iran and other hostile actors, I believe that a decision to approve Rosebank will help to ensure that oil supplies for Europe are not constrained by the geopolitical choke-points that we have seen driving up the cost of living in recent years.
Let me be absolutely clear that I support the Government’s net zero targets and recognise the importance of bold, practical action on climate change. However, the transition must be delivered in a way that protects jobs, ensures energy security and carries public support.
Luke Akehurst
Sorry, no.
As the UK will continue to consume oil and gas for the foreseeable future, it makes little environmental sense to offshore production to other countries outside Europe, which often have higher emissions and additional transportation costs, only to import the same resources back into Britain. A decision to withhold the approval of Rosebank will not change whether we use oil in the short to medium term. Instead, it will determine whether those resources are produced responsibly here in the UK while we continue to invest in the clean energy industries of the future.
With a progressive Government in power that faces up to the challenge posed by climate change, we could even ensure that the Rosebank project helps to pull us towards our climate obligations and not away from them, through the energy wealth fund, which has already been announced and which will reinvest revenues from oil and gas into renewable energy. A decision to approve Rosebank could therefore move us closer to a clean energy system and create even more jobs on top of those directly linked to the Rosebank field.
Chris Hinchliff (North East Hertfordshire) (Lab)
I declare an interest as the chair of the climate and nature crisis caucus.
If we measure both sides of the scales, it is obvious that the costs of pollution from Rosebank vastly outweigh any of its benefits. Those costs will fall on millions of people across the UK who are already struggling to make the sums add up at the end of the month. They will be the ones whose living standards will dive as farmers’ yields fall and food prices soar; they will be the ones whose health will suffer as our weather grows more extreme and the temperatures in our schools, hospitals and workplaces become unbearable; and they will be the ones who will pay the price of flooded homes and businesses.
Moreover, we know that the carbon pollution already in our atmosphere is disrupting the rhythm of England’s seasons right now, and that the stress of climate change is already killing England’s ancient oaks. On Armistice Day, when we remember those who fought and died for our country, it seems that we might be forgetting what inspired and sustained so many of them through the hell that they faced.
We say, “Lest we forget”, but what honour do we pay to the memory of Edward Thomas if we now pursue policies that destroy the “hawthorn-time in Wiltshire” that shaped him into a conscious Englishman? What worth is given to Rupert Brooke’s promise,
“That there’s some corner of a foreign field
That is for ever England”
if we exacerbate the climate-induced drought that is reducing the River Granta, which he loved, to a feeble dribble, such that no future generation can join him
“as swimmers into cleanness leaping”?
What sort of remembrance do we offer Robert Graves if, by extracting the last dregs of fossil fuel profits, we extinguish
“the quiet of an English wood”,
which he longed for in the trenches of 1915?
If those poets were with us now, what would they make of a proposal that threatens to wreck the landscapes, the sights and sounds, and the sense of home that made England so precious to them? That national inheritance is infinitely more valuable than all the revenues Shell and Equinor can promise us.
Laura Kyrke-Smith (Aylesbury) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Twigg. The wider context of the Rosebank decision is clear and cannot be stated firmly enough. The route to a clean, secure and affordable future lies in renewable energy, not in more drilling of oil and gas. I commend the Government’s work on driving the renewables transition so far, but on Rosebank, I will focus my point on energy security.
If I thought there was an argument that Rosebank would boost our energy security, I would take that seriously. The threats to our wider security and way of life from Russia, Iran and others are severe, and if we fail to keep ourselves safe, we will undermine all the societal, economic and environmental progress that we want to see at home. However, I do not see the energy security case for Rosebank. In the short term, it will not boost our domestic energy production, as 90% of its reserves are oil, not gas, and are likely to be exported. In the long term, it will drive up emissions and increase the very real security threats caused by climate change, from pressure on food systems to increased migration.
Frankly speaking, we are on a hiding to nothing to say that in a global context, the emissions from Rosebank are low and dwarfed by emissions from China or elsewhere. That does not absolve us of our responsibilities to do our bit to protect our planet. I would like to thank the many residents who have been in touch with their concerns ahead of this debate. I will quote one resident who summed it up nicely:
“My main concern is the future we’re leaving for our children. As a mum…I want to feel that we’re actually making progress and doing everything we can to limit the impact of climate change for future generations.”
I worry increasingly about this issue. As we know, the final decision on Rosebank rests with the Secretary of State. She will be privy to legal advice that I have not seen, but for me the question is whether Rosebank supports that transition to a clean, secure and affordable future for ourselves and our planet. I am not convinced that the answer is yes.
Joe Morris (Hexham) (Lab)
It is a pleasure, as always, to serve under your chairship, Mr Twigg. I congratulate the hon. Member for Bristol Central (Carla Denyer) on securing a debate that is so incredibly important to my constituents.
Drilling at Rosebank would be a mistake for our climate goals and it would not accomplish the very things that many voices arguing in favour of it claim it would. I represent a community where fuel poverty is real; it is real in those rural homes that struggle with insulation and it is real for the families that come to my surgeries and tell me they struggle with the cost of heating oil. I do not believe that drilling at Rosebank would help those families; indeed, it would continue our destructive addiction to fossil fuels at the precise time we should be looking at the geopolitical situation and weaning ourselves off them.
I have not discovered this issue out of political convenience. I have always been a proud member of the environmental movement. My constituency is one where protecting our landscape is paramount. It is the land of Hadrian’s wall, swathes of peatland, the Tyne river and, until a few years ago, the Sycamore Gap tree. My constituents have been proud of the natural beauty of Northumberland for generations. Protecting and conserving what we have should not be a left-wing idea; it should be the oldest idea that we have.
Over the summer, I surveyed my constituents. Hundreds of people took the time to answer and 89% said protecting the environment and fighting climate change is a key priority for them. When I asked whether they would support granting new oil and gas licences or expanding current drilling, 98% said no.
Joe Morris
I am afraid not. I would invite anyone to check Hexham Matters to see whether 98% of my constituents agree on anything else.
Over its lifetime, Rosebank is projected to release emissions equal to about 70% of everything that the UK emits in a year. That is more than the combined emissions of the 73 lowest emitting countries and territories on Earth. Of those 73 countries, some are the poorest in the world and the most exposed to the effects of the climate change, and they are all to be outweighed by a single oil field.
I want us to be the Government who have the courage to say no to Rosebank. We came into office promising no new licences. I am aware of the technical arguments, but the public believe that Rosebank would represent a new licence. Conserving the natural world should not be a preserve of those of us on the left; it never was. However, there is a bloc in this country that wants a cleaner, fairer and more secure future, and it spans all parties and none. It includes the climate campaigners who come to my roundtable, as well as the constituents I meet regularly. I urge the Minister to listen to their voices.
Richard Burgon (Leeds East) (Lab)
Governments are defined by their first few months in office. Whatever else they do on the environment, getting Rosebank wrong will shape the green credentials of this Government for years to come. They cannot afford to get this wrong.
Climate change is not just another problem; it is the stage on which the future of humanity will be played out. We are talking about a threat to billions of people, devastated food systems, whole cities becoming uninhabitable, a health emergency and a security nightmare. We are at this danger point because of decades of actions by fossil fuel giants; they knew the dangers of climate change that they were causing and they covered up the truth, all to keep the profits flowing. They continue to spread disinformation, putting profits before all else.
Let us be clear: Rosebank is not compatible with our climate targets—it is dangerous to pretend otherwise. Rosebank will not lower bills. Its oil will be sold on the international market by a private company at market prices, making it billions. People’s bills are higher because we are hooked on oil and gas. Renewables are the cheaper way to break that dependency. The International Energy Agency says that Rosebank will do very little for energy security, and OBR figures show that Rosebank will do almost nothing for tax revenues. Finally, Rosebank is a clear international law risk, because it will aid the flow of profits to a company that is operating in illegal Israeli settlements. For so many reasons, the Government must not approve Rosebank.
Cat Smith (Lancaster and Wyre) (Lab)
Over the last year, I have been holding regular MP forums with constituents who have written to me about different themes and issues. One such forum is the local eco-forum that I co-ordinate. At that event, my constituents ensure that their voices are heard, and I have promised to represent them in this Chamber as their local Member of Parliament.
I hope the House will indulge me for the next two minutes if I quote issues that my constituents have raised with Rosebank. First, Gerard from Lancaster said that this summer’s weather made it clear that
“the scale of Rosebank is fundamentally incompatible with any credible pathway to the UK’s climate commitments.”
Frances from Pilling told me:
“We can already see climate breakdown unfolding all around us.”
Barbara from Garstang highlighted:
“We’re already seeing the consequences in repeated and record-breaking heatwaves, devastating floods, failing harvests and rising food and insurance costs.”
Another constituent, Laura, said:
“As a young mother and a researcher whose work focuses on the effects of climate change on disease, I am deeply concerned about the future my daughter will face if we fail to act now.”
The impact on our climate leadership was another theme that emerged, with Michael highlighting that the UN
“has now said the world has failed to hold the Paris agreement pledge of keeping global temperature rises to under 1.5 degrees and that we must cut global emissions by 18% over the next four years to find our way back.”
Oscar from Barnacre told me:
“COP31 provides a huge opportunity that could define this government—to stand on the world stage and announce the rejection of the Rosebank oil field on climate grounds.”
Indeed, that is something I hope we see in the coming days.
The impacts on energy security and energy profiteering were also made clear, with various constituents stressing that this would not lower their bills or offer them the energy security they seek. I urge the Government to listen to my constituents and to recognise how unpopular a decision it would be to go ahead with the Rosebank development.
Mr Jonathan Brash (Hartlepool) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Twigg. At the heart of every major economic and industrial decision should be one simple question: what does this mean for British workers? Will it create good jobs, develop skills, strengthen industry and bring investment to communities that are too often left behind? Will it give the next generation the chance to earn a decent living through skilled work? That is the British worker test, and it is my view that approving Rosebank passes it.
First, on energy security, we cannot surrender domestic production while continuing to consume imported oil and gas. That is not energy independence; it is an industrial retreat that does not pass the British worker test. Secondly, on jobs, Rosebank represents a major investment opportunity that will bring thousands of jobs. Behind those figures lie real people—engineers, welders, electricians, technicians, offshore workers and those employed throughout the supply chain. We cannot rebuild our industrial economy by turning our backs on the industries capable of sustaining it.
Thirdly, it is about our communities. I represent Hartlepool, which is a town with a proud industrial heritage and a future that should be built around engineering, advanced manufacturing and energy. We are pursuing nuclear investment, developing our skills base and working to attract industries that will create opportunities for the future. Jobs in Hartlepool rely on renewables, they rely on nuclear and they rely on oil and gas. That is my frustration with this debate: too often it is about political ideology. Whether it is the representatives of Reform who would destroy renewable jobs, or the Greens who would destroy nuclear jobs and oil and gas jobs, that all means job destruction in my community. Instead, we should do it all. That protects Hartlepool jobs, it protects jobs throughout this country, and it passes the British worker test.
Chris Murray (Edinburgh East and Musselburgh) (Lab)
I recognise that we will need oil and gas for decades to come, but I must think about Scotland’s future. I am an environmentalist because I am a realist, and I believe that, when confronted with facts, we must face them. The North Sea Transition Authority projects UK oil production falling from 650,000 barrels a day today to just 60,000 by 2050—a decline of more than 90% within 25 years—and those projections account for discoveries such as Rosebank.
Employment has tracked production downwards. How can I look Scots my age in the eye and tell them Rosebank offers a secure career to raise a family and retire if it is 90% smaller when we retire? I cannot do that. Scotland has been here before. Our transition away from coal devastated communities, including Newcraighall in my constituency. We must not repeat the mistake of marooning workers in a sector ineluctably in decline.
Edinburgh has the energy transition on our doorstep, and I regularly meet constituents on six-figure salaries travelling the world working in renewables. That is where the jobs of Scotland’s future lie. Scotland industrialised early, and although we did not know the effects of climate change then, we know them now. How can we advocate that countries such as Nigeria and Bangladesh reduce their emissions, if Scotland cannot take the steps to do so? Those countries will be the biggest markets for our renewables expertise. I oppose Rosebank because I back Scotland’s energy sector and I want it to thrive for decades to come.
Perran Moon (Camborne and Redruth) (Ind)
Meur ras, Mr Twigg. It is an honour to serve under your chairship. I was proud to be elected on a manifesto that pledged to ban the approval of new oil and gas licences in the North sea. Rosebank would be a futile final bone thrown to the oil industry. The proceeds of Rosebank will not be felt in energy bills, given that the oil will be sold on the international markets with no guarantee that it will be reimported back into the UK and will barely tweak the Treasury’s revenue needle.
Had we set up an energy wealth fund, as the Norwegians did while the UK endured the Thatcher years—and as the Chancellor did in the Budget two weeks ago—the UK would have benefited from these proceeds, but we long sold off control and therefore the ability for Rosebank to benefit our communities.
We should instead be investing in renewables, much in the same way that the National Wealth Fund has invested £1 billion in offshore wind projects announced today. We will create good, productive jobs, bolster energy security and tackle the cost of living. These benefits will be felt prominently in post-industrial communities such as Cornwall, where we have remarkable opportunities in critical minerals, geothermal, floating offshore wind and solar.
But there is another massive decision on the Government’s doorstep today that has the potential to dwarf even Rosebank. If the Government choose to reduce the 2030 target for zero emission vehicles to 50%, with flexibilities extended, that would create a demand for petrol equivalent to double annual Rosebank production. It is really important that Members understand this. Failing to transition to electric vehicles would come not only with a catastrophic environmental cost, but the loss of 127,000 jobs and £70 billion in gross value added. I therefore urge Members to galvanise their opposition against the changes to the ZEV mandate. I would be happy to discuss this with any Members after this debate.
John Whitby (Derbyshire Dales) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve, Mr Twigg. I thank the hon. Member for Bristol Central (Carla Denyer) for securing this important debate. Indeed, no debate is more important than one that discusses the consequences of our heating climate. In the Derbyshire Dales, the climate crisis is no longer something happening elsewhere or something for future generations.
Over the summer, I spoke to anxious residents in Thorpe who were terrified of a wildfire occurring at Dovedale. I spoke to farmers having to use their winter stores to feed their livestock. I have been to six showings of the “People’s Emergency Briefing”, each of which was packed out, showing the level of concern. That concern is reflected by the latest science.
The global temperature has increased by 0.4°C in the last decade alone. We all know that we have unofficially already breached 1.5°C. This summer has made the climate emergency very real. The National Heat Risk Commission estimated that the week commencing 22 June alone cost the economy £1.15 billion in lost output. That could potentially rise to £25 billion a year by 2030.
John Whitby
Sorry, I do not have time.
I accept that Rosebank will not blow our carbon budgets, because much of the 254 million tonnes of carbon emissions will be created in other territories. But the planet does not care where the carbon comes from: it all ends up in the atmosphere or the sea and affects us all. Production of the oil will not make life any cheaper for people; the price will be set by global markets.
The Government made a commitment to no new oil and gas for a very good reason: we must retain our authority and global leadership on the climate. We cannot do this by ourselves.
Samantha Niblett
Does my hon. Friend agree that saying we contribute only 1% to global emissions does not give weight to the size of our influence? We might be small, but we are mighty. If we are flippant about our commitment to renewables and reducing our carbon emissions, that sends an awful message to the rest of the world.
John Whitby
I absolutely agree with my hon. Friend and constituency neighbour.
On Rosebank, we cannot keep kicking this planet-sized can down the road. We need to draw the line somewhere—and I say we draw it here.
Julia Buckley (Shrewsbury) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Twigg. I thank the hon. Member for Bristol Central (Carla Denyer) for securing this vital debate, because my constituents in regularly flooded Shrewsbury are incredibly concerned about the environmental impact that could come from approving the licence for Rosebank, and several local environmental groups and many residents got in touch to tell me so. People such as Diane, Amy, Hannah, Ian, Jamie and Phil want our Government Ministers to know the strength of feeling against fossil fuels, which belong in the past and not in our future. In fact, Hannah described Labour’s manifesto commitment not to approve any new licences as
“lighting a beacon of hope for a better tomorrow”.
The Government have already approved the Jackdaw gas licence—described as a “balanced decision”—promising to ringfence the £1 billion tax revenue for the energy wealth fund so that we can move forward with our investment in Great British Energy renewable projects to guarantee our national energy security. However, I would urge the Minister and our Secretary of State not to make a decision in favour of Rosebank and not to add further to our climate emergency.
Julia Buckley
I am sorry; I will not.
Instead, can we show our international leadership on the environmental emergency and use the Rosebank moment as an opportunity to reaffirm our commitment to climate resilience, rejecting the oil licence in favour of renewables so that we can uphold our net zero promise and relight that beacon of hope for a better tomorrow?
Derek Twigg (in the Chair)
I hope to call the Lib Dem spokesperson at 3.34 pm. In the meantime, I call Abtisam Mohamed.
Abtisam Mohamed (Sheffield Central) (Lab)
Thank you, Mr Twigg. I will keep my contribution brief.
Like many others, I have signed the StopRosebank pledge on behalf of my constituents in Sheffield Central because we do not have an alternative to survival. There is no moral argument in developing more oilfields as climate breakdown continues. Unless we act now, we will be known as the generation that knowingly ushered in climate catastrophe.
Rosebank fails on every test. It will not benefit taxpayers, who will shoulder the vast majority of the development costs. It will not strengthen our energy security, because most of the oil will be sold on international markets. And it will not reduce energy bills for our constituents, who will remain exposed to volatile fossil fuel prices. I want us to show the courage to invest in renewable energy for a cleaner future, which will allow us to show real climate leadership.
Pippa Heylings (South Cambridgeshire) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Twigg. I join everybody else in thanking the hon. Member for Bristol Central (Carla Denyer) for securing this important and timely debate. And it is timely, as we have heard powerfully from Members across the room, and at the multiple people’s emergency briefings in my constituency and across the country following a summer of record-breaking heatwaves, droughts and wildfires.
Martin Wrigley
The summer has been so hot and the storms so bad in my constituency that we are in a state of severe drought and flood warnings at the same time. Can we really consider allowing Rosebank to go ahead and look the next generation in the face?
Pippa Heylings
It is very hard to look my children and the next generation in the eyes as we debate this issue. The Met Office has confirmed that, as a result of burning fossil fuels, we are now living in a changed climate.
The UK’s independent climate advisers acknowledge that the UK will continue to need some oil and gas until it reaches net zero, but they are clear that
“this does not in itself justify the development of new North Sea fields”.
Pippa Heylings
I will not.
Instead, those advisers said that limiting the expansion of fossil fuel production must be a key priority. The Department for Energy Security and Net Zero has set a new objective to support
“a globally standard-setting, 1.5°C and climate science-aligned approach to future oil and gas production.”
Dr Opher
I thank the hon. Member for giving way. Does she agree with me, and about 150 constituents who have written to me, that instead of investing in the exploration of oilfields such as Rosebank, which would cost £4.1 billion—it is a difficult field to explore—and would not lower bills, we should invest £4.1 billion in renewable energy?
Pippa Heylings
It will not surprise the hon. Gentleman that not only did I allow him to speak, but I agree with him.
The decision on Rosebank will be the first major test of the Government’s new approach and the UK’s climate commitments. We need energy security now more than ever in this unstable world. Although we could have properly invested in our transition towards cleaner, cheaper, more efficient energy, successive Governments have instead left the UK in a state of energy insecurity. Because they scrapped zero-carbon homes and insulation schemes, the Conservatives built around 1.6 million homes to lower efficiency standards, costing families in those homes an extra £5 billion in energy bills between 2017 and 2025, and leaving those off-grid exposed to heating oil price spikes, as the hon. Member for Hexham (Joe Morris) described. The Conservatives have pledged that they would continue doing the same if elected.
The sad truth is that Britain has not moved anywhere near fast enough when it comes to reducing the demand for gas and oil in our homes and transport, so we need some North sea oil and gas as part of our energy mix for decades to come. However, accepting that reality does not mean supporting every new oil and gas development. When it comes to Rosebank, we Liberal Democrats are clear that the evidence does not meet rigorous climate tests. As my hon. Friend the Member for Horsham (John Milne) stated, around 90% of Rosebank’s reserves are oil, most of which will be sold into the global markets, not reserved for British consumers. Rosebank will not necessarily shield households and businesses from the volatility of global energy prices, and so will not bring down people’s bills in my constituency or other constituencies.
The oil and gas workers who have powered our economy for generations deserve our gratitude and respect, and they are rightly angry that the number of jobs supported by the North sea over the past decade has more than halved, with no transition in place. That is why we Liberal Democrats are calling for the Just Transition Commission to put them at the heart of the new transition.
Ministers must also confront a wider climate issue, as the hon. Member for Camborne and Redruth (Perran Moon) powerfully highlighted. Following the Finch judgment, the full climate impact of oil and gas production can be properly assessed. Rosebank’s projected scope 3 emissions are around seven times greater than those associated with Jackdaw, equivalent to roughly a quarter of the UK’s sixth carbon budget. The Government have stated that the approval of Jackdaw is in line with our legally binding net zero targets, but that is because our net zero targets do not include scope 3 emissions. Will the Government therefore comply with their own policy, following the Finch judgment, that mitigations will be required for scope 3 emissions? None has been set for Jackdaw.
Rather than pursuing projects such as Rosebank, we should focus our efforts on accelerating the transition to clean, home-grown energy and to electrification, so that we can use up all this good, clean energy. Will the Minister therefore support the Liberal Democrats’ calls for a national electrification strategy?
This debate is about the choices we make for our energy future. Rosebank will not lower bills, it raises serious questions about tax revenues, it will not increase our energy security, and it will not save the North sea—but it will wreck our climate.
Harriet Cross (Gordon and Buchan) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Twigg. I thank the hon. Member for Bristol Central (Carla Denyer) for securing the debate.
I start by paying my respects to Sir Jim Milne, whose death at 85 was announced today. Sir Jim was a giant of the oil and gas sector. Born and raised in Aberdeen, he went on to be one of the north-east’s most renowned energy sector entrepreneurs. My condolences, and I am sure those of many others, go to Sir Jim’s family, friends and many colleagues, who will miss him greatly.
This debate is not about whether we need oil and gas. We do, and we will for decades. It is about where the oil and gas we need comes from, and whether we get the economic benefits from producing it ourselves. While we need oil and gas, and while we have oil and gas, we should be prioritising using our own oil and gas. But—madly—we are not.
When the Government permitted Jackdaw a few weeks ago, they said it would be good for jobs, good for business and good for energy security—and they were right. But those same arguments apply for Rosebank. As my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen South (Douglas Lumsden) and others have highlighted, Rosebank will support thousands of jobs, directly and in the supply chain. It could deliver tens of billions of gross added value to our economy and around half a billion pounds annually in direct tax revenues. No serious Government would be prepared to walk away from that.
Rosebank is primarily an oilfield, but it contains a notable amount of gas. Although Jackdaw is expected to produce the equivalent of 6% of the UK’s gas needs, Rosebank could contribute a further 4%, and the Government permitted Jackdaw on the basis that it was good for gas supplies this winter and good for energy security. The same reasons therefore apply to Rosebank.
One of the principal arguments made against Rosebank in this debate is that the oil will be exported, so let us deal with that face on. About 90% of the crude oil that we extract in UK waters is refined in the UK or exported to Europe, with approximately 65% of that, as we have heard, returning to the UK as refined products—products that we need every day. The extraction of oil from the UK is good for our energy security. It is far better than importing oil from the other side of the world, where supply is vulnerable to disruption at choke points such as the strait of Hormuz.
Let us be completely honest: the export argument is incredibly superficial. We are an exporting nation; we are the fourth largest exporter in the world, and trade accounts for 60% of our GDP, so why has that suddenly become an argument against Rosebank? Those who are concerned about the oil being exported should ask themselves why the UK has lost a third of our refining capacity in the last two years and whether they will support our proposals to scrap carbon taxes and restore the competitiveness of domestic refineries—but, sadly, I doubt that many will.
The reality is that the alternative to not producing our own oil and gas here is not using less; rather, it is importing more. Those imports are more carbon intensive, extracted under different standards and shipped miles around the world to get here. So why are we deliberately replacing domestic production with more high-emission imports? That is the choice that those opposing Rosebank in this debate are making.
Cat Eccles (Stourbridge) (Lab)
Does the hon. Lady recognise that any oil extracted from Rosebank would have to be exported to be refined? We do not have the refining capacity, as she just mentioned, so it would represent more carbon emissions, increased costs and very little coming back to us.
Harriet Cross
We are exporting to Europe now and bringing it back—Rotterdam is a lot closer than, for example, Canada, Nigeria or Algeria, where we are importing a lot of our oil from.
There are some questions on the financial forecasts that I would like the Minister to address. Last year, the Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury confirmed that the OBR’s forecasts do not provide a breakdown of individual fields, yet Rosebank was specifically referenced in this year’s forecast accompanying the Budget. Can the Minister explain why? Was the OBR given assurances by the Government that the field would be permitted? If Rosebank does not proceed, will the forecast need to be revised?
I would also like the Minister to clarify another inconsistency. Last month, the Foreign Secretary signed off the Sea Lion oilfield in the Falklands, which is twice the size of Rosebank. Both Sea Lion and Rosebank have published their scope-free calculations, so why has one been allowed while the other is still stuck in limbo? Why are the Government supporting jobs and growth in Port Stanley, but not in Aberdeen?
The debate on Rosebank should not be about climate change, emissions or use of oil and gas, because not permitting Rosebank will not mean that our demand for oil and gas disappears overnight. This is a debate about jobs, business and UK industry. Businesses need confidence, and oil and gas operators and supply chains are no different, yet the Government are sending completely contradictory signals. One minute, they recognise the importance of domestic production and jobs by permitting Jackdaw; the next, they continue to delay Rosebank and press ahead with their plan to ban new oil and gas licences.
It should not even need saying, but sadly it does: no business—oil and gas or otherwise—is obligated to invest in the UK. Firms can put their money, employ people, grow their businesses and produce their energy elsewhere, and increasingly they are choosing to do so. That is bad in so many ways for the UK—there is no plainer way of saying it. The Government are pushing investment abroad, driving down production and with it our energy security, sacrificing tens of thousands of jobs and skills that have taken more than half a century to develop, and—knowingly and deliberately—making us increasingly reliant on more carbon-intensive imports, precisely when we have seen how fragile international supply chains are.
Olivia Blake
Between 21 and 28 June this year—just eight days—there were 2,124 heat-associated deaths, which is 620 more deaths in one week alone than in the whole summer of 2025. How many health risks or deaths are needed before the Opposition get back around the table and rejoin the consensus that action on climate is not only critical, but necessary, and not a nice-to-have?
Harriet Cross
The oil and gas sector is much more than just Jackdaw or Rosebank. This is an industry that employs over 100,000 people and supports a supply chain that is so important to the roll-out of renewables, nuclear or other defence and energy technologies. It is a sector that the UK cannot do without, so we really need to look at the way in which it is undermined, talked down and seemingly penalised by politicians and the public when they do not believe that we need oil and gas, or believe that we can keep going as we are with oil and gas.
Can the Minister please address how any credible Government can justify legislation to ban oil and gas licences when we need it, have it and will otherwise just be importing it? It will make us weaker, it will make our economy poorer and it will make too many people unemployed. That is the choice being made by this Government, and it is a choice that they are making through the Energy Independence Bill. They must know, deep down, that it is the wrong choice for the UK.
The Minister for Energy (Michael Shanks)
Thank you for your expert chairing and timekeeping in this debate, Mr Twigg. I thank most Members for returning to hear the closing speeches, I thank the hon. Member for Bristol Central (Carla Denyer) for securing the debate, and I thank all right hon. and hon. Members for their participation.
I echo the comments of the shadow Secretary of State for Scotland, the hon. Member for Gordon and Buchan (Harriet Cross), about Sir Jim Milne. He was a titan of industry in Aberdeen and was the founder of the Balmoral Group, which is a good example of what we are talking about today: the group was largely set up in oil and gas, but is increasingly doing work in renewables. My thoughts are with his family.
I want to be clear at the outset about one thing, which may disappoint many Members present. Rosebank is subject to an ongoing regulatory process. In due course, the Secretary of State for Energy has to decide whether or not to agree the grant of that consent. If she decides to do so, the North Sea Transition Authority then has to make the final decision. The environmental effect of the project will be considered and weighed alongside other relevant considerations in reaching a decision, including the potential advantages of the project proceeding. I stress that this Government will not make decisions for this country that are not compatible with our climate obligations, but I cannot and will not undermine the regulatory process that is currently under way by discussing the merits or demerits of the Rosebank project today.
However, I want to pick up some of the more general issues that have been raised in the debate. Of course, consideration of the Rosebank decision follows the decision taken by the Energy Secretary to approve the Jackdaw gasfield just a few weeks ago. The Jackdaw decision will support the country’s energy security, protecting hundreds of jobs and adding an estimated £2.9 billion to the UK economy; the decision document outlines more details on that. The decision was fully in line with our climate commitments, and we expect that in the coming days gas will start to flow from the field to meet demand right across Britain.
I want to set out once again the Government’s wider energy, North sea and climate policy. I will begin where the hon. Member for Bristol Central began: on climate. She is right to say that it is imperative that we tackle the climate crisis. The heatwaves, droughts and extreme weather events that are becoming all too frequent are a reminder to people right across this country that climate change is not some future, theoretical threat, but a very present reality that we are living through.
This Government are absolutely committed to tackling the climate crisis, supporting bill payers and bolstering our energy security by moving to the clean, home-grown energy system that we need and that we control. First, the recent heatwaves and extreme weather events that we have seen demonstrate why this is of critical importance, and that we must pick up the pace in the transition to clean energy. Secondly, recent rises to the energy price cap have largely been caused by the war in Iran, showing that we have to move off the ruinous reliance on global fossil fuel markets that we can never control.
The hon. Member and others rightly pointed out that new drilling in the North sea will not take a penny off bills, and we should be honest about that. Producing the energy that we need at home is vital to moving away from fossil fuel dependence, and the transition to clean energy remains a central priority for this Government. However, we have always been clear that the UK will still require oil and gas as part of our energy mix for decades to come, even on our path to net zero.
It is a basic truth, which we must be honest about, that until we increase our electrification and move away from a reliance on fossil fuels, we will still require them to heat homes, power the country and power industry, but it is right that we take a pragmatic approach. In short, we are not a turn-off-the-taps Government, as our critics accuse us of being, but nor can we justifiably be a drill-every-last-drop Government. We have to manage the transition and build for our energy needs of the future as quickly as possible, and that is baked into the legally binding climate commitments that we have in order to reach net zero by 2050.
Just last week, we introduced the Energy Independence Bill to Parliament, making good on our commitment to introduce legislation to end new exploration licences. We will be the first major G7 producer country to take that step, making sure that we signal a commitment to the global 1.5°C climate goal and demonstrating global climate leadership at a hugely important moment for the world. Furthermore, North sea oil and gas production is already in natural decline. Production in 2025 was 75% lower than in peak years. Further licensing will not reverse that natural decline or change the UK’s status as a net importer of oil and gas. It is a basic fact that, while oil and gas will continue to play an important role in our energy system for decades to come, that has to be alongside our move, as quickly as possible, to the deployment of renewable, new nuclear and other low-carbon technologies.
Richard Tice
If we are the only G7 country to ban the drilling of new oil and gasfields, does the Minister think that other G7 countries will follow us, or does he think that they will laugh at our naive stupidity?
Michael Shanks
First, let me be very clear, because there has been a lot of confusion on this: new production from the North sea is not the same as new exploration licences. We have been very clear on that. Secondly, if we look at the history of the Climate Change Act 2008, for example, it has driven a global consensus to action on climate change. Thirdly, the hon. Gentleman rightly talks about the role that Britain should play in leading in the world, and then retreats at the very moment when leadership is important. This is a moment to stand up and fight for Britain’s influence in the world. I am very proud that we are there at COP and in other places trying to encourage the world in this transition. I hope that he would do likewise.
Michael Shanks
Also in the Energy Independence Bill is a commitment to support the management of existing fields by introducing transitional energy certificates. Those will enable some oil and gas production in already explored areas that are near licensed fields linked by a tie-back. At its heart, this is about taking a pragmatic approach to the North sea, providing long-term stability, maintaining jobs and ensuring that the sector continues to make an important contribution to the UK economy. I am sorry that the SNP seems to have changed its position from supporting that exact climate-leading position. I am not quite sure what its position is from one week to another, but I am sure that when this much-vaunted energy strategy is published at some point—we have only been waiting three years—we will know what the SNP’s real position on this is.
Many right hon. and hon. Members, including my hon. Friends the Members for Dunfermline and Dollar (Graeme Downie) and for Hartlepool (Mr Brash), made powerful comments about the importance of jobs being at the heart of this transition. My hon. Friend the Member for Dunfermline and Dollar rightly made the point that we need an energy mix, which means not “or” but “and”: having oil and gas alongside the push to renewables as quickly as possible. Those jobs are critical to what we need to do in the energy transition, and we have to hold on to them in the UK.
We have been ambitious about the number of clean energy jobs that we can deploy, tripling them in Scotland and at least doubling them in Wales, Northern Ireland and almost every region of England, supporting hundreds of thousands of jobs across the UK by the end of the decade. These are not jobs arriving at some point in the future. Sumitomo opened the first UK high-voltage direct current subsea cable factory with more than 200 jobs; more than 1,500 jobs have been created in the electricity network sector in Scotland; and today we saw two new projects at Vanguard East and Vanguard West, with 2,400 jobs, as well as new jobs from SSE investment in Berwick Bank. These jobs are being created right now in communities right across the country, and we need to support even more of that investment in clean energy into the future.
A number of points have been raised today about the either/or choice between oil and gas and our move to renewables. I want to be clear that our pathway must be towards the deployment, as quickly as possible, of clean power right across the country. Every single day we remain exposed to fossil fuel markets is a day our constituents pay the price in their bills—and in a very uncertain world, we no longer have the energy security on which we once relied.
The long-term future of this country does not lie in fossil fuels from the North sea. The Government seek to make decisions that take a genuinely pragmatic view of the coming decades, in which we will require oil and gas in our energy mix, and ensure that we get as much economic advantage as possible. Renewables and nuclear is the economic opportunity of the 21st century. It is also a route to protecting bill payers and energy security and to meeting our hugely important climate commitments. Regardless of what decision the Energy Secretary makes on Rosebank, that transition will remain central to this Government’s objectives.
Since we came into office two and a half years ago, we have consented enough clean energy to power more than 20 million homes. We have kicked off a new golden age of nuclear. Some £110 billion of clean energy investment has flowed into clean energy industries. We have saved millions of pounds every single day on oil and gas purchases that we no longer required, as the strait of Hormuz closed, because we could rely on home-grown, secure power here in the UK. I am proud of that record. There is much, much more to do and we are absolutely determined to do it.
Carla Denyer
I thank the Minister, the shadow Minister, the Lib Dem spokesperson and all colleagues who have contributed. It is heartening, frankly, to see so many of us across the House united in opposition to new oil and gas.
I absolutely hear the concern that some Members have raised about their constituents’ jobs, but the hon. Member for Edinburgh East and Musselburgh (Chris Murray)—not my constituency neighbour, but my neighbour in the room today—answered those points very clearly when he pointed out that jobs in the North sea are in terminal and steep decline and that we will lose 90% of them in the next 25 years, whether or not Rosebank is granted. Surely the best thing we can do for those workers is to ensure that they are supported with a fully funded transition support programme like the one I proposed in my energy jobs Bill.
I thank the hon. Member for Derbyshire Dales (John Whitby), who cut through our arguments over exports and imports by reminding us that the planet does not care where the carbon emissions come from. I thank the many hon. Members who brought to the fore the stark impacts of the climate crisis falling on their constituents right now—including the hon. Members for York Central (Rachael Maskell) and for Sheffield Hallam (Olivia Blake), who talked about heat deaths this summer. I have been struck by the huge passion and eloquence in the room. I also thank the thousands of people who have written to their MP ahead of today’s debate. I pay tribute to Greenpeace, Friends of the Earth, Uplift, Zero Hour and others who help to make sure that we MPs understand the public’s strength of feeling on the issue.
Having covered the economic and climate cases in my opening speech, I will close with just a few words about the political case against Rosebank. Today’s debate has happened in the context of a political situation in the UK in which climate deniers and delayers on the hard right are trying to discredit climate action. Perhaps that is because they are out of touch; perhaps it is because they do not actually care all that much for the communities that they claim to represent; perhaps it is because they are bankrolled by fossil fuel interests. They push a narrative that is as misleading as it is dangerous. Sadly, we have seen it take hold, especially the misconceived idea that climate action is unpopular with voters and that rowing back on climate commitments is a winning strategy, as the hon. Member for Camborne and Redruth (Perran Moon) and I fear may be about to happen on electric vehicle targets.
The evidence simply does not bear out that idea. The UK public overwhelmingly support strong climate action. If we retreat from that truth, and from the truth of the climate science, the results will be disastrous. We cannot in good conscience look the other way. We must do everything possible to prevent the go-ahead being given to this action of climate vandalism. Once again, Mr Twigg, I thank you, the Minister and all colleagues who joined the debate.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered Government policy on Rosebank oilfield.
West London Orbital Rail Project
(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
Derek Twigg (in the Chair)
I will call Ruth Cadbury to move the motion and then the Minister to respond. I remind other Members that they may make a speech only with the prior permission of the Member in charge of the debate and the Minister. There will not be an opportunity for the Member in charge to wind up, as is the convention for 30-minute debates.
Ruth Cadbury (Brentford and Isleworth) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered Government support for the West London orbital.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Twigg, and to speak on an issue that is of particular relevance to Members from west London: the proposed development of the west London orbital rail line. This valuable strategic rail project will connect Hounslow in the west to Hendon in the north-west, avoiding the need to go into central London.
Back in the 1830s, during Britain’s first railway boom, parliamentary Committees signed off thousands of miles of new rail tracks in short order. I am not proposing that we do that today, but I hope to show why the proposal has broad and deep support from councils led by different political parties, a broad range of civic society organisations, the business community, MPs, the Greater London Assembly and the Mayor of London. The Government also supported it in the Budget two weeks ago.
Dawn Butler (Brent East) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend for securing this important debate. I am so excited, because Neasden in my patch in Brent will be connected to the WLO. Does she agree that it will make London more economically sustainable, and will bring housing and jobs? What is not to love?
Ruth Cadbury
Exactly—and what is more, it will make it so much easier to get to Wembley stadium in my hon. Friend’s patch.
I thank the West London Alliance of local authorities, which has done so much to work up and promote the scheme, and to bring business and local government leaders together—some are in the Public Gallery watching the debate. But let me first set out some background about the scheme. The West London orbital route would start—or finish, depending on where you are—in my constituency at Hounslow station, passing through Isleworth, Syon Lane and Brentford stations. There would be a new station at Lionel Road, by Brentford football club’s ground, and it would then go through Acton and Old Oak Common, allowing an easy connection to High Speed 2 and the Elizabeth line, before continuing via Harlesden, Neasden, Brent Cross and finishing in Hendon. The route would connect west London with north-west London, significantly cutting journey times.
David Pinto-Duschinsky (Hendon) (Lab)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this incredibly important debate, and I share her excitement. Does she agree that the project would not only supercharge economic growth and connectivity in west London, but benefit north London? It ends in my constituency, as she says, and it would bring benefits to the whole of north London and the borough of Barnet.
Ruth Cadbury
I absolutely do, but from a West London Alliance perspective, Barnet is in west London, so when I say “west London” I of course include Barnet.
My constituents and I will get to Wembley stadium in less than an hour, with a much better journey. The line will link 450,000 additional people to Old Oak Common within an hour, massively boosting the benefit that HS2 will bring to outer London.
Dr Rupa Huq (Ealing Central and Acton) (Lab)
I am grateful to my hon. Friend, my constituency neighbour, for giving way. Old Oak is in my seat. This huge thing that we were promised has still not quite happened, and it seems to be going over budget. Does she agree that we need a comprehensive traffic survey? Obviously, the benefits are great—it will be very quick to go to Brent Cross, for example—but several level crossings in Chiswick, which we used to share, will be down permanently, so where will that traffic go? Will it evaporate? The Old Oak link sounds great.
Ruth Cadbury
There is clearly a lot of work to be done, particularly on alternatives to the level crossings. I have one in my constituency, and I know that my hon. Friend has more. However, I am absolutely sure that the local authorities, which definitely want this scheme, and Transport for London—ditto—will work together to find effective solutions that do not disbenefit local areas in ways that can be avoided.
What is important for many of us and our constituents is the direct link to the Elizabeth line. That would allow my constituents to access another route both into central London and out to Heathrow without needing to get a bus up to the Elizabeth line stations.
The real magic of the scheme is that it makes use of existing rail lines. They have capacity, with some parts currently used only by freight, such as the Dudding Hill line and the stretch between South Acton and Kew Bridge. Only four new stations would be needed, and no elaborate new tunnelling is required, so it is more or less a shovel-ready scheme.
London’s existing tube and rail network was mainly developed by private companies in the 19th and 20th centuries as London was growing, but without much strategic thinking. Outer London boroughs do not have great connectivity in many parts, and what there is generally follows the radial rail routes going in and out of central London. There are exceptions that actually demonstrate success, such as the Mildmay line—until a year ago, we knew it as the North London line. That is an orbital route.
Luke Taylor (Sutton and Cheam) (LD)
I congratulate the hon. Member on securing this incredibly important debate. Although we welcome the additional connectivity that the West London orbital will bring, TfL has refused to extend the line to provide connections for other underserved areas, such as Whitton and Twickenham. The hon. Member mentioned Wembley stadium; there are opportunities to provide better rail access to Twickenham stadium, but also for the Ivybridge estate, which sits in her constituency. Does she agree that TfL should reconsider its refusal to extend the service to those underserved areas of London?
Ruth Cadbury
The hon. Member makes an important point. I have been asked by my constituents living in Whitton whether the line, at its western end, could continue beyond Hounslow, around the Hounslow loop line, to Whitton, Twickenham, and so on.
Particularly as we face the prospect of more events at the Twickenham rugby football union stadium, I am aware that there may be capacity challenges on the routes through Twickenham, but I hope that South Western Railway and TfL can look at what extra services would help connectivity for not only my constituents in Whitton but those on the south side of my constituency in Isleworth.
I will now move on to the wider benefits to the city region. West London is a powerhouse for economic growth in the UK, second only to central London in productivity and GDP per head. We have strong growth sectors: tech, arts, logistics, food manufacturing, the creatives and tourism, with many world-leading brands and businesses. However, the sub-region is held back by poor intra-regional transport links. That is why the west London orbital is so important.
It is projected that, for west and north-west London, the scheme will help to deliver 25,000 new homes and 11,500 new jobs, and will bring more than 3 million jobs within a 45-minute commute. That is so important for our economy here in London. Some 200 businesses have recently confirmed that they back the project, because they know that new public transport services are good for growth; they open up formerly inaccessible industrial areas and cut congestion on our roads.
Providing more public transport services also supports London’s net zero and climate change ambitions, improves our air quality and improves access to jobs, training, healthcare, leisure and cultural opportunities—especially for Wembley, as I have mentioned. Recently, there have been attempts to talk down London, but a strong capital city makes for a strong country, and strong growth in London means strong growth across the UK.
Where is the proof of the value of new services such as this? That proof is in the Elizabeth line. I remember when it was Crossrail, that much-maligned project, but since it opened to passengers in May 2022, the Elizabeth line has been a huge success. Some 90% of users say that it has improved their area, and within a couple of months it will transport its billionth passenger, way ahead of projections. More than that, though, the Elizabeth line has been responsible for thousands of jobs and homes along the line. Abbey Wood in the east has become one of the biggest regeneration areas in London. Build it and they shall come.
The Elizabeth line teaches us not only to go ahead with new transport lines, but to look at innovative ways of funding them. We were so pleased that at the Budget the Chancellor gave the Mayor of London greater power and control over spending income tax in London, along with powers to enable the WLO to be funded through the business rates regime. That, in turn, will benefit from the uplift in land value in and around the new line. That was the model we used to fund the Elizabeth line. We know it works. I want to thank the Chancellor and the Government for engaging with London MPs, the mayor and local authorities on this issue.
I move on to some questions for the Minister. When will the Government publish further details about proposals for fiscal devolution mechanisms, and when could the new funding powers become available? Will the Department for Transport co-ordinate work with TFL, the mayor, Network Rail and local councils on how the fiscal devolution mechanism can work to fund this project? What work is being undertaken with partners to establish a viable funding package following the announcement in the Budget?
The next stage of design on the WLO has been commissioned and will be worked on throughout 2027. Will the WLO, as a test case, enable local partners and the Government to work through what a funding package would look like during 2027? What needs to happen to keep the scheme on track for possible operation by 2035 and are there any Government-controlled obstacles? The WLO uses existing network freight lines, so its progress depends on work with Network Rail, including on level crossings. Will the Minister ask Network Rail to actively work with TfL on the next stage of design? Will he agree to meet TFL, the West London Alliance, local MPs and other partners to discuss how the Government can help bring the scheme forward? Finally, what lessons has the DFT learned from previous infrastructure projects, such as Crossrail, HS2 and the expansion of the London Overground network?
I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response and I hope we can build on the really positive announcements from the Budget. This project is a huge opportunity to increase connectivity, decrease journey times and bring extra investment into west London. I hope the Government can work with TfL, local councils, the West London Alliance and so many other organisations that are working together, committed to making this proposal a reality for my constituents and everybody else in west and north-west London.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Justin Madders)
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair this afternoon, Mr Twigg. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Ruth Cadbury) on securing this debate and for setting out so clearly and comprehensively the importance that she attaches to improving transport connectivity across west London. I also recognise that she has considerable support among colleagues, including my hon. Friends the Members for Brent East (Dawn Butler), for Ealing Central and Acton (Dr Huq) and for Hendon (David Pinto-Duschinsky) and the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Luke Taylor). There is clearly a united front on this issue.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Brentford and Isleworth would expect, the Government recognise the importance of a reliable, accessible and well-connected transport network. That is particularly important in a global city such as London, where a transport network supports not only the capital’s economy, but the wider UK economy.
As we have heard today, the west London orbital is a proposal for a new London Overground passenger service between Hounslow and Hendon, making use of existing rail infrastructure, including lines currently used for freight, as my hon. Friend mentioned. Transport for London estimates that the scheme could support more than 25,000 new homes and about 11,500 jobs. As my hon. Friend said, that will improve connectivity and links between important areas of economic development, including Old Oak and Park Royal, Brent Cross and the great west corridor. She also discussed connectivity with Brentford Football Club and said on a number of occasions that she hoped there would soon be a direct link from the club to Wembley—
Justin Madders
As a Brentford supporter, she might be a little over-optimistic in that regard, although I recognise the irony of my making such a comment. Nevertheless, I am sure that we would all benefit from regular trips to Wembley.
Dawn Butler
Lots of things happen at Wembley stadium, and we welcome people coming to it.
I thank the Minister for his comments. The reality is that after years of under-investment by the previous Government, we now have a Government who have recognised that situation and are investing in London. Will he join me in welcoming the devolution of powers to London? Those powers will enable the unlocking of schemes such as the WLO, which will bring about £300 million of investment into our economy.
Justin Madders
It is clear that the direction of travel under this Government is to empower local areas to control their own destinies; we think that is really important. We hope to see the mayoral model being replicated around the country, but there is already proof of concept in London. I will say a little more about the fiscal devolution proposals in a minute.
As Members will know, transport is devolved to the Mayor of London and Transport for London: it is for them to determine and prioritise which projects they want to support. Nevertheless, we work closely with Transport for London to understand the long-term needs of London’s transport infrastructure and where there are opportunities to enhance the network, including through major projects such as the one we are discussing today.
The Government have already provided significant support to Transport for London, including more than £6.5 billion in revenue funding and capital funding between 2020 and 2024. At the 2025 spending review, the Government also confirmed nearly £2.2 billion in capital funding for Transport for London over the four years from 2026-27 to 2029-30, to support major rolling stock, signalling and road renewal projects.
Dr Huq
I wonder whether my hon. Friend the Minister can allay some fears that I heard about on the doorstep last weekend about South Acton station in W4. People were saying that unless we sort out the level-crossing issue and find a better way of doing them, communities will be cut in half and there will be permanent gridlock. They were also saying that this project will never happen, because the money is not there. Can he elucidate?
Justin Madders
We can say with confidence that we will give the Mayor of London the powers and tools to make the project happen; it will then be a question for him to decide whether it actually happens. However, I am sure that, given the support in this Chamber, he will make the project a major priority.
I understand my hon. Friend’s point about level crossings. There is a consultation at the moment, which I hope will be able to identify and deal with some of the particular issues that she mentioned.
I want to say a few words about future fiscal devolution. The Chancellor set out in the Budget his plans to put power into the communities of our country, to get good growth in every postcode. We are moving away from the fragmented and restrictive central Government grant regime to give local leaders greater funding and certainty, with a stronger reward for local growth. That is why alongside the Budget we published a fiscal devolution road map, which sets out a reformed funding model for English regional and local government. Under fiscal devolution, all mayors will receive a share of business rates from 2027 and a share of local income tax from 2028, in place of central Government grants. For local authorities, a key part of our reforms is the commitment to make business rates a fully locally retained tax by the end of the decade.
For London in particular, the Chancellor committed in the Budget to legislating to enable the Mayor of London to establish a successor to the Elizabeth line business rate supplement. Such mechanisms will help the Greater London Authority to finance future transport infrastructure projects such as west London orbital—or indeed other schemes, potentially. Full details on fiscal devolution will be set out at the spending review in 2027.
The Prime Minister has made it clear that it will not be for central Government to decide where London invests; that will be, of course, for Londoners themselves. That means that the Mayor of London will have the tools to deliver the transport links that the capital needs. Along with No.10 North, we will work with the mayor, the GLA, Network Rail and local councils on how fiscal devolution can fund this project.
The west London orbital is at a development stage. As I have already said, Transport for London’s first public consultation is currently under way and will remain open until 18 November. The consultation seeks views on the proposed route, new stations, and the potential impacts and benefits of the new scheme, which will hopefully deal with the concerns that my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing Central and Acton has just referred to.
Once the consultation has concluded, Transport for London will need to consider the feedback alongside the wider evidence as it continues to develop its proposals. Although the scheme is not yet at a funding package stage, we will continue to engage constructively with the mayor and Transport for London as the proposals develop and we continue to unlock funding that will enable the mayor to deliver the scheme should he choose to.
The Rail Minister, my noble Friend Lord Hendy, regularly meets Transport for London and the Greater London Authority to discuss their transport priorities. I am sure he will be happy to meet them again to discuss this further. Of course, it is for Transport for London to determine the timetable for the scheme and keep it on track for possible operation by the mid-2030s. Should Transport for London choose to progress it, we will of course work with them to ensure that there are no Government-controlled obstacles in their way. As with any scheme, we will work with both Network Rail and Transport for London on resolving issues, including on capacity, given that passengers and freight services would share the line.
In closing, I reassure hon. Members that the Government understand the importance of improving connectivity and supporting sustainable economic growth in London. Once again, I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Brentford and Isleworth for securing this debate and for the passion and clear-sightedness with which she has advocated for this particular line.
Question put and agreed to.
Safety of Emergency Workers
(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
Amanda Martin (Portsmouth North) (Lab)
I beg to move,
That this House has considered the safety of emergency workers.
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Twigg.
Our emergency workers run towards danger when the rest of us would instinctively run away. When someone is injured, trapped at sea, frightened or in grave danger, our emergency workers do not ask first who the person is, where they come from or what their political views are; they simply act. They do it because it is their duty, and because they care. In the case of organisations such as the RNLI and the coastguard, they volunteer their own time to save complete strangers. The very least they should expect in return is to do their job without being assaulted, threatened or intimidated.
Because of the nature of their roles, however, emergency workers often do not have a voice. They are expected to get on with their job and absorb the abuse. I wanted to hold this debate to give them a voice and secure action to protect them. Sadly, recent events in and around Portsmouth have shown that that cannot be taken for granted. On 6 September, protesters gathered at Eastney pier in an attempt to prevent migrants rescued from a small boat being taken out of the area. Further protests followed in neighbouring Gosport on 22 September and 4 October. There have been convictions for violent offences connected to those protests, and other cases remain before the courts—I will not comment on those proceedings.
The cases that have concluded give the House a very disturbing indication of what emergency workers faced. On 22 September, Shannon Dodds concealed her identity with a mask and sunglasses before spraying a noxious substance into the face of two police constables. Sally Pearson punched an officer, causing a suspected ligament injury that has left him unable to work for three weeks, and she then directed racial abuse at another officer. Behind those assaults are real people—officers who went home injured, families worried about their loved ones and colleagues left to pick up the pieces.
It was not just the police. I have spoken to emergency services representatives who were on the frontline. Ambulance crews trying to reach people in need of medical assistance were abused. Protesters rocked their vehicles, banging on the sides, and pushed phones aggressively into the workers’ faces, filming them and sharing the images online. The coastguard vehicle had every tyre slashed, police vehicles were damaged, and emergency workers and volunteers were followed, filmed and intimidated. Their message to me was simple: “This is not what we signed up for.”
Videos from the Eastney disorder showed protesters shouting, “Effing traitors,” and, “I hope you effing lot sink,” at the RNLI boats. Those words were directed at people whose only purpose is to save lives. The intimidation extends beyond the protests: I have heard reports of RNLI crew members’ children being harassed, and volunteers and staff being advised not to wear service-branded clothing in public for fear of abuse. What does it say about us if lifeboat volunteers cannot safely wear the badge of an organisation dedicated to saving lives? What sort of patriotism attacks British officers, obstructs British paramedics, damages coastguard vehicles and intimidates RNLI volunteers? Wrapping yourself in a flag does not make your actions patriotic. Real public service is someone putting on a uniform, answering an emergency call and helping someone they have never met.
Darren Paffey (Southampton Itchen) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Twigg. I thank my hon. Friend for securing this really important debate. She represents a coastal seat just along from mine in Portsmouth, so she knows the value of the RNLI and the lifeboats. Does she agree that those who have dressed up what they have done as some form of righteous activism are both misguided and utterly irresponsible? In addition to some of the events she described, some children of RNLI volunteers were bullied at school. Does she agree that that crosses a line, and will she join me in full support of our RNLI volunteers and their families, who have paid a price for this?
Amanda Martin
I wholeheartedly agree with my hon. Friend. As a teacher, I say that bullying has no place in school, especially from people pretending to be patriotic who are just doing harm to the people helping us in our society.
I will be absolutely clear about the right to protest. I respect that right—I have been on many demonstrations. It is fundamental to our democracy, and I will always defend it. Many people who attended these demonstrations were local residents with genuine concerns about immigration, the asylum system and the impact on our communities. Some of them felt very intimidated by the turnout of protesters in balaclavas. Their concerns deserve to be heard, not dismissed. People should not be made to feel that expressing concerns about immigration makes them extremist or less entitled to have a voice. I understand the anger many constituents feel about illegal immigration, and I share their determination to stop dangerous small boat crossings.
People are entitled to demand secure borders, an effective asylum system and firm action against the criminal gangs that profit from putting lives at risk. They are also entitled to be frustrated by years of political rhetoric and promises from Governments who have had the opportunity to act but have not. There has been progress under this Government, but the job is not finished.
But there is an unmistakable line between peaceful protest and criminal disorder. Assaulting officers, obstructing ambulances, damaging emergency vehicles and intimidating rescue volunteers is not protest; it is criminal behaviour. We must also recognise that alongside concerned residents, there was an organised far-right element to these demonstrations. Hon. Members will be familiar with so-called Danny Tommo and the Patriot Platform. Through his network, far-right activists were mobilised from across the country to come to Portsmouth, often with their faces covered, to exploit local concerns, stir up division and contribute to disorder and hate.
Such people are creating a protest tourism industry, bringing chaos to communities and seeking to profit from public anger. We should never allow those who exploit legitimate public anxieties to claim that they speak for everyone who attends a peaceful demonstration. My first question to the Minister is: what is being doing to improve intelligence sharing between police forces when organised agitators travel between areas, and what more can be done to hold organisers and online instigators accountable?
Sadly, Portsmouth’s experience is not unique. The RNLI told me that it saw 140 reports of abuse and aggression across the country in September alone. The Association of Ambulance Chief Executives recorded over 22,000 incidents of violent abuse between 2024 and 2025—the equivalent of 62 incidents every day. A survey by the Royal College of Emergency Medicine found that 96% of emergency department staff had experienced violence or aggression from a patient or member of the public. Before these protests, I was already hearing from hospital staff in my city that they were facing racial abuse at work. These flashpoints are part of the wider problem of how we treat the people who provide essential public services.
We must consider how these attacks can be prevented. One issue that is raised repeatedly in Portsmouth is the use of face coverings by people intent on causing disorder. There are legitimate religious and medical reasons for wearing face coverings, and those rights must be respected, but there is a clear distinction between those reasons and deliberately concealing one’s identity to commit offences and evade identification. At a subsequent protest in Portsmouth, which the Minister is aware of, police used powers to require the removal of these face coverings. Arrests were reduced dramatically and residents were able to express their views peacefully. Can the Minister explain how the Government are supporting local forces to use existing powers, and whether those powers need strengthening, particularly where police have not received prior notice of a protest?
I also want to address online intimidation, misinformation and disinformation. Local workers and volunteers have been doxed, with photographs of their personal information, including home addresses, shared online. Far-right accounts have labelled them traitors and encouraged hostility towards them. People have received death threats and letters sent to their homes. One worker said that by the time he had left the protest after his 25-hour shift and gone home, he saw his address all over X. He was very distraught about that and what it would do to his family. I have also heard of one worker who has not been home since June because they were misidentified online. People who have done nothing more than their jobs are being left frightened about being in their own homes.
The Hampshire Police Federation told me that officers understand the physical risks involved in policing protests, but after a 24-hour shift or a cancelled day of leave, it is going home and finding their face online that hits them hardest. Emergency workers are increasingly scared to use personal social media accounts to share pictures of their children with family, because they fear that agitators will infiltrate their accounts. New technologies are making this behaviour easier. The RNLI has had agitators entering its stations wearing Meta glasses and uploading footage online to cause further intimidation.
A consistent problem is how difficult it is to get personal information and videos taken down from social media. Social media companies do not have good enough procedures to deal with this—we must press them to do better, and quickly. I have written to the Secretary of State for Digital, Culture, Media and Sport about tackling doxxing. Although I recognise that digital policy sits with other Departments, will the Minister explain the work taking place across Government to protect emergency workers from online intimidation, and to ensure that harmful personal information is removed quickly?
Alongside direct threats, we must challenge deliberate misinformation about the role of our emergency services. When those organisations put out factual statements explaining their work, they are often accused of lying, with hostility towards their staff and volunteers amplified as a result. The RNLI has a legal, moral obligation under international maritime law to assist those in distress at sea. Its crews are not political activists but specialist rescue workers, many of whom volunteer their time. There is a particularly important example from Eastleigh. While rescuing people from a small boat, RNLI crews also helped to ensure the safety of protesters who had gone into the water—the very people protesting at the RNLI’s involvement were saved by its crews.
I am also concerned that elected politicians have helped to amplify misinformation and hostility towards our emergency services. Councillors both locally and nationally amplified information by livestreaming and sharing videos, and by ignoring hostile comments on their social media posts, while emergency services were carrying out their duties. Elected officials and politicians carry responsibilities that should never be used to legitimise intimidation or encourage hatred.
Will the Minister raise with colleagues the need for a stronger standards regime for councillors, including how they can be held accountable when they use their position to encourage abuse or spread dangerous misinformation? What more can the Government do, working with social media platforms and trusted local voices, to challenge false claims before they translate into real-world intimidation or violence?
I was delighted that Portsmouth city council yesterday agreed to grant the RNLI the freedom of the city, following the protests. It was disappointing to note, however, that every Reform councillor abstained. This debate is ultimately about the kind of country we want to be. We can disagree passionately about immigration—we can protest and challenge the Government and we can demand change, and we should defend the rights of people to do so peacefully, even when we profoundly disagree with what they say—but none of that justifies the assault or intimidation of the people who keep us safe, nor should legitimate public concerns ever be exploited as an excuse to spread hatred.
The emergency workers we see being abused today may be the very people our families depend on tomorrow. Their duty is to help whoever is in danger; our duty is to make sure that they do it safely. Those workers do not ask whether somebody deserves to be saved, where they are from, their political background or what they have done. They simply answer the call.
We must defend the right of people to protest, but we must also defend the right of those who serve our communities to do so safely. I hope the Minister will set out how the Government will protect emergency workers from violence, strengthen the response to organised disorder, tackle doxing and misinformation, support those suffering trauma, and ensure that anyone who attacks or intimidates an emergency worker faces swift and serious consequences. Our emergency workers stand up for all of us, regardless of who we are and what we believe. It is time we did the same for them.
Several hon. Members rose—
Derek Twigg (in the Chair)
Order. To get everybody in, it would be helpful if Members kept their speeches to around five minutes.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship again, Mr Twigg. I thank the hon. Member for Portsmouth North (Amanda Martin) for drawing this issue to our attention. I also congratulate her on the way she represents her constituents in this Chamber and in the main Chamber. They are fortunate to have her. When they listen to her contributions, they will know how important that is.
For emergency responders, being subject to physical violence and verbal abuse has become part of their daily routine. From 2024-25, there were 22,500 incidents of violence and abuse directed at ambulance workers across the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, a rise of 15% on 2023-24. Any level of abuse is of course unacceptable, but we must recognise that the number of incidents is dramatically on the rise, having reached the highest on record over those years. Female ambulance workers are most likely to be targeted by the public. Senior ambulance officials believe that the true number of incidents is even higher than reported.
Other frontline forces, such as the police, regularly face abuse, with attacks on police happening an average of 100 times a day in the United Kingdom. Our officers now report that they are used to being punched and kicked but are growing increasingly concerned as abuse becomes more extreme and frequent. Hon. Members can get an idea from dashcam videos and police programmes showing motorway police on chases; they are attacked far too often.
Firefighters are no exception. Firefighters from the Northern Ireland fire and rescue service have been attacked on a number of occasions, as indeed have the police, by people high on drugs or drink, or with their own particular problems. Data from the London Fire Brigade shows that on average there were two incidents of physical or verbal abuse every week from 2019 to 2023. Such behaviour can never, ever be accepted as an occupational hazard.
These incidents have consequences beyond the emergency workers themselves, delaying responses and putting public safety at risk. Estimates suggest that more than 1,000 patients a day in England suffer potential harm from ambulance handover delays—these things are sometimes unseen, but they are none the less important.
I will give an example from last week in Northern Ireland. On Saturday, a serious assault on a paramedic happened at Altnagelvin hospital. I read about it in the paper on, I think, Monday morning. The lady sustained injuries to the back of her head, neck, face and hands during the attack. She was beaten to the ground and then attacked when she was on the ground. This kind of behaviour towards our emergency workers, who carry out their duties with such compassion when helping those in need, is utterly unacceptable.
Helen Maguire (Epsom and Ewell) (LD)
I thank the hon. Member for Portsmouth North (Amanda Martin) for securing this important debate. The Rapid Relief Team does vital work by supporting frontline staff to ensure they can work safely during demanding shifts. For example, Surrey fire and rescue service worked all night to contain a fire in Grundon waste recycling centre in Leatherhead, and the volunteers mobilised to provide the crew with encouragement and warm food, which is particularly important when they face abuse and attacks. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that it is important that we support such organisations?
Jim Shannon
Yes; we are thankful to the group that the hon. Lady mentions, as well as to the general public. We should never forget what they do.
I call on the Minister and Government to work to ensure long-term mental health support is available to our emergency workers. We need to be aware that the guys sometimes carry the trauma and the post-traumatic stress beyond what happens from the physical impact. The psychological effects of these horrific incidents last long after they have taken place.
The uniform worn by our emergency workers is not a shield against physical or verbal abuse. Behind every uniform that I or anybody sees is a real person, with real feelings and emotions. The trauma caused by these incidents cannot simply be taken off with the uniform at the end of the shift. When someone’s uniform is off, and they are sitting on the sofa, they still have to deal with what happened to them during the day. We must stop treating such abuse as an inevitable part of the job and recognise its lasting impact on those who work to save so many lives.
Sureena Brackenridge (Wolverhampton North East) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Twigg. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth North (Amanda Martin) for securing such an important debate on the safety of emergency workers.
Violence, intimidation and hatred should never be seen as just part of the job, and must be called out, with the right legislation, so that perpetrators face real consequences. Like Members across the House, I have heard of incident after incident involving emergency workers with intimidation, threats, racism and discriminatory hatred, far too often involving physical violence, directed at people who are simply trying to do their jobs. I recently met colleagues from the Black Country integrated care board and heard deeply concerning accounts of the increasingly audacious abuse directed at NHS staff, particularly non-white and migrant colleagues on the frontline, who are caring for and helping our communities.
Nobody should feel unsafe or targeted because of the uniform that they wear, whether they are a police officer already responding to a violent incident, a paramedic attending an emergency call, a firefighter being pelted with bricks as they attend a dangerous situation, or an NHS worker attempting to treat a patient but facing a barrage of abuse. These are incredible people carrying out vital public service roles in difficult circumstances.
Parliament has taken important steps to strengthen the law, but the scale of the problem remains stark. A Royal College of Emergency Medicine survey of emergency department staff, published just this September, found that 96% had experienced violence or aggression from patients or the public, 73% had experienced or witnessed it daily or weekly, and 63% had faced discriminatory abuse, including racism. Just 4% always felt safe at work. Closer to home, 3,336 assaults on emergency workers were recorded across the west midlands in 2025-26.
The Assaults on Emergency Workers (Offences) Act 2018 created a specific offence, and the maximum sentence was subsequently increased to two years. Sentencing legislation also treats offences against emergency workers as an aggravating factor, and the Crime and Policing Act 2026 introduces further protections against threatening and abusive behaviour. Despite those changes, the scale of the problem remains deeply concerning. We have to ask: if Parliament has strengthened the law and increased penalties, why are we still seeing figures at this level? This damages morale, undermines staff retention and puts even greater pressure on already stretched public services.
The law must send an unmistakable message: violence, threats, racism and abuse against emergency workers will not be tolerated. Minister, will intelligence sharing help to ensure that perpetrators face real consequences, so that emergency workers can do their jobs free from violence, racism and discriminatory abuse? We cannot keep thanking these workers for their courage while expecting them to tolerate violence, intimidation and hatred simply as part of doing their jobs.
Perran Moon (Camborne and Redruth) (Ind)
Meur ras, Mr Twigg. It is an honour to serve again under your chairship.
I invite Members to use their imagination and picture me as an 11-year-old tearaway on Sunday 20 December 1981, walking down Causewayhead in Penzance. We had had a storm the night before, but everything seemed very still the day after it, and I remember seeing a grown man crying for the first time ever. I knew something terrible had happened. It was not until we went to school the week after that I learned of the Penlee lifeboat disaster, in which the eight crew of the Solomon Browne had perished, along with the eight people on board the Union Star.
That disaster had a profound effect on me, but it also had a big impact on lots of my friends. Over the next few weeks, we learned who those eight men on the Solomon Browne were and where they lived in our communities. We also learned about the work of the RNLI. Even to this day, at the end of December in the village of Mousehole, the lights are dimmed to remember the crew of the Solomon Browne.
We not only learned who they were and what they did, but that the RNLI does not differentiate according to the colour of a person’s skin, or their creed; it goes out to help anyone in peril on the sea. People who live in coastal communities see the RNLI saving lives on a weekly basis. Across these British Isles its volunteers save thousands of lives every year. I have nothing but the highest, deepest admiration for these volunteers. They will always have my unequivocal support.
Those volunteers are truly the best of British. Those who abuse and bully those volunteers are, without a shadow of a doubt, the worst of British. They are not patriots. I ask the Minister: what powers can be used to punish those who abuse our heroes—the heroes who week in, week out think not of their own safety, but go out to sea to save people in trouble? The RNLI volunteers act selflessly when we need them to protect us; at this time, we need to do all we can to protect them.
Jack Abbott (Ipswich) (Lab/Co-op)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Twigg. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth North (Amanda Martin) for securing this debate. Every day, across our country, police officers, firefighters, paramedics, ambulance crews, nurses, doctors and, as we have heard today, lifeguards put themselves in difficult and dangerous situations to protect and look after us all. They are there for us on our worst days and they have dedicated their lives to serving their communities.
This summer, our firefighters in Suffolk demonstrated the very best of us when they responded to the fire at Dunwich Heath. They put themselves in harm’s way working long, brutal hours to protect our communities and our precious environment. Their work was nothing short of heroic. Far too many emergency workers are subject to violence, abuse and intimidation on a daily basis. In 2025, nearly one in five respondents to the Norfolk and Suffolk NHS foundation trust staff survey said they had personally experienced violence at work and almost 30% had personally experienced harassment, bullying or abuse. Furthermore, staff from ethnic minority backgrounds experienced disproportionately high levels of abuse.
I am afraid to say that the figures for the East Suffolk and North Essex NHS foundation trust, which runs our hospitals, were little better. Around 15% of our staff experienced violence, and more than a quarter of those experience harassment, bullying or abuse. Those figures are already shocking, but they are especially shocking when we consider who is on the receiving end. These are people who give so much to others every day: nurses caring for patients throughout the night, mental health professionals supporting the most vulnerable people in our society and doctors providing essential day-to-day care. No one should face abuse or violence simply for going to work.
I have seen their dedication first hand. Earlier this year, I joined Sam and George from the East of England ambulance service as they responded to calls from people across Ipswich. Throughout the morning, I saw the professionalism, compassion and dedication they brought to every call, but I know people like Sam and George continue to face unacceptable levels of abuse. In 2023 alone, there were nearly 1,500 recorded attacks on East of England ambulance service staff.
Police officers in Suffolk face increasing levels of violence, too. In the 12 months leading to April ’26, Suffolk police officers were assaulted at least 622 times. That includes hundreds of physical assaults, verbal abuse and intimidation. These people went to work to help people, not to become victims themselves.
If we are honest, the likelihood is that the true figures are much higher. Incidents go unreported because it is deemed to be part of the job, but abuse should never be part of the job. No one should expect and accept harassment as part of their day-to-day life, no one should accept violence as something they have to put up with, and no one should accept intimidation as something that is normal.
That is why the measures introduced in the Crime and Policing Act are so important. For too long there was a glaring loophole in the law. Our changes will ensure that the same protections apply in all settings, and that those who abuse our emergency workers face serious consequences. That sends an important message: abuse is abuse, wherever it happens, and emergency workers deserve our protection, wherever they serve.
Whether they are ambulance crews, NHS staff, police officers, firefighters or lifeguards, our emergency workers want to be able to do their job safely and return home to their families at the end of their shift. That is not an unreasonable demand. Those people take huge risks to keep us safe, and we ask an extraordinary amount of them. They deserve our protection. I hope this debate serves as a reminder not only of the challenges that emergency workers face, but of the immense debt of gratitude that we all owe them.
Brian Leishman (Alloa and Grangemouth) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to see you in the Chair, Mr Twigg. My thanks go to my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth North (Amanda Martin) for securing this important debate and bringing this issue to Westminster Hall.
In July 2022, the International Agency for Research on Cancer, which is part of the World Health Organisation, concluded that the occupation of firefighting is carcinogenic, linking it to firefighters’ exposure to toxicants present in fire effluents. Only six months later, a University of Central Lancashire study on Scottish firefighters, commissioned by the Fire Brigades Union, showed that firefighters have higher cancer and disease mortality rates than the general public. Tragically, many firefighters with rare cancers are diagnosed at the terminal stage.
Firefighters are directly exposed to potentially large quantities of toxins and fire effluents on a regular basis. Fire effluent is a cocktail of toxic, irritant and carcinogenic species, which vary depending on the specific materials burning and the fire conditions at an incident. Exposure through inhalation, ingestion or dermal absorption is likely to be a significant risk factor for acquiring cancers and diseases. Research has found that such toxins are often unknowingly transported back to stations and firefighters’ homes, further increasing their exposure. Even if the levels of contamination at fire stations are much lower than the levels at the incidents, prolonged exposures to potentially harmful contaminants add up over a lifetime of service, with significant health consequences.
One example is exposure to soot. Some 93% of firefighters have noticed soot in their nose after an incident: 30% said that it remained until they washed, 32% said that it was still noticeable for a few hours after washing, 23% said that it remained for up to a day and 6% said that it remained for more than a day. Only 6% reported not noticing soot at all.
Jessica Toale (Bournemouth West) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend for raising the health and safety issues that our firefighters face. This summer, Dorset and Hampshire experienced wildfires, but firefighters in Dorset and Wiltshire fire and rescue service do not have the lightweight protective gear that their counterparts in Hampshire do, meaning that they are more vulnerable to issues such as heat exposure. Does he agree that all fire services should have access to the personal protective equipment that they need for their job?
Brian Leishman
I could not agree more with my hon. Friend. It is imperative that we seek equality, and that means improving PPE for firefighters right across the nation.
To finish on my point about soot exposure, compared with the general public, firefighters are twice as likely to be diagnosed with cancer if they have noticed soot in either their nose or throat.
The FBU has backed not only the devolution of relevant employment injury assistance benefits, but the creation of a Scottish Employment Injuries Advisory Council, to review and modernise any Scottish benefits. Frankly, it is unacceptable that six years after the industrial injury scheme was devolved to Holyrood, the SNP Scottish Government is still not ready to roll out work to deliver the Scottish employment injury assistance scheme. The FBU has strongly advocated for the creation of a Scottish Industrial Injuries Advisory Council to ensure that employees have a permanent seat on the body responsible for reviewing and amending what illnesses, injuries and diseases would be recognised under a new Scottish scheme.
Firefighters have been atrociously let down, as a previous Bill to deliver that body was voted down in Holyrood, delaying this vital piece of work. Firefighter cancers and diseases are recognised with presumptive legislation and/or compensation schemes in more than 50 countries across the world. The way the SNP Government treat our fire service leaves firefighters and communities less safe; it is nothing short of a national disgrace.
Joe Morris (Hexham) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship for a second time today, Mr Twigg. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth North (Amanda Martin) on securing this important debate. I echo the language from many of my hon. Friends about the volunteers at the RNLI. As my hon. Friend the Member for Camborne and Redruth (Perran Moon) put it, those who have sought to intimidate, persecute and penalise the wonderful people who volunteer and their families really are the worst of the worst. We should all pay tribute to the volunteers for their sacrifice, their service and their courage.
I want to speak about some of the circumstances that emergency responders face in my constituency. Safety is not abstract idea there; my constituency is a remote, sparsely populated place, and parts of it are a long way from the nearest responder. A fell runner who breaks their ankle in the countryside near Haltwhistle; a family who is a cut off by flooding; a driver in a wrecked car at 2 o’clock in the morning: for all of them, the first person to arrive is someone who has chosen that job, who has given up their evening, their weekend or their sleep, possibly even for free in some cases. They ask for very little—they only ask that we do not make their jobs more dangerous than they have to be.
The rising violence and abuse that we have seen against emergency service workers in recent years should never a part of the job and should not be something that we tolerate as a society. Assaults on those workers should carry penalties that mean something, and we should consistently assess those sentences and make sure that they remain a complete deterrent to those taking part in them. Employers and the Government must invest in the training, equipment and protection of those workers. The mental health and trauma support that are essential after serious incidents should be prioritised. Staffing shortages are also a danger, because a crew that is stretched and exhausted is a crew that is more likely to be hurt.
The Police Federation tells us that sentences for assaults on emergency workers are often too lenient. The Fire Brigades Union has condemned attacks on crews on Halloween and bonfire night, and rightly says that anyone who targets firefighters on their way to an emergency is putting a whole community at risk. The Association of Ambulance Chief Executives report physical assaults on paramedics and care assistants and threats and abuse often linked to alcohol, drugs and mental health crises.
We would not accept it in any other workplace. Every service describes the toll of repeated exposure to traumatic incidents. A paramedic does not forget a critically ill child. A firefighter does not forget a cut-out. A police officer does not forget a serious road collision. We cannot keep asking people to carry the mental and emotional toll of those things and believe that just offering them a leaflet is adequate. Mental health support after those serious incidents should be as routine, as quick and as well funded as anything else.
In Northumberland, we cannot discuss emergencies without discussing the A1; I know that the Minister will not be aware of all the ins and outs of the case, but I would like her to press it with the Department for Transport and the Treasury. The single-carriageway stretches of the A1 in Northumberland have a long and well-documented record of serious collisions; this year alone, there have been 12 deaths on them. I want to see the A1 dualled, and I know that all my hon. Friends from Northumberland do as well. I have worked with all the Northumberland MPs, the North East Mayor and other key stakeholders to press the case, and will continue to do so.
Each one of those collisions has a victim and a family, and we will never forget that, but each one of them also sends emergency responders on to the road: police officers to manage the traffic, firefighters to get people out of vehicles, paramedics to work on the live carriageway, and recovery and highway crews to operate just feet away from passing lorries. The danger on roads like that to people who respond is recognised nationally, especially when there is little room to separate moving traffic from people who are trying to help. Each time they are called out, they are asked to work next to fast-moving vehicles, often in the dark and the wet, and do the worst job of their working week. As I have said, I hope that the Minister can bring up the importance of the A1 to colleagues. The argument around dualling is well rehearsed. Because of the tragedies, the economic benefits and the risk to emergency workers, it is essential that we see that road dualled.
I also pay tribute to firefighters and the Fire Brigades Union. When I meet them, I regularly hear about growing risks in my constituency, from flooding, wildfires and climate-related emergencies to antisocial behaviour-related risks to their team. On bonfire night, Northumberland fire and rescue service control handled 266 emergency calls in 24 hours, and the busiest stretch, between 4 pm and 10 pm, saw crews attend 49 incidents across the county—bonfires, bin fires, road collisions and false alarms—with control staff also helping neighbouring services who were struggling with demand that evening. I pay tribute to them and thank the FBU for its consistent engagement with me since I was elected.
I want to widen this debate to include the mountain rescue service. A couple of weeks ago, I was privileged to meet mountain rescue service volunteers in Wylam in my constituency. Northumberland national park mountain rescue and the North of Tyne mountain rescue work in partnership. Between them, they cover about 5,000 square km—all of Northumberland and Tyne and Wear, from the Cheviots to the Tyne bridge. They are on call 24 hours a day, 365 days a year—they are not paid at all.
They told me that they search for walkers, fell runners and climbers who are overdue or injured, and they search lowland areas for people who are vulnerable or missing from home. They also go into places that statutory services cannot easily reach. After meeting with them, I heard that storage of their equipment is a sharp problem that they have to deal with. Rescue kit is expensive and must be ready at a moment’s notice. I wrote on 30 October—
Derek Twigg (in the Chair)
Order. Sorry, but I have to stop you there and call the Liberal Democrat spokesperson now.
Luke Taylor (Sutton and Cheam) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairship, Mr Twigg. I congratulate the hon. Member for Portsmouth North (Amanda Martin) on bringing this important debate to Westminster Hall.
Emergency workers are heroes who carry this country on their shoulders. They may be there with someone in their final moments, they may have to put their life on the line to rescue someone in harm’s way and, sadly, they may also witness extraordinary abuse and violence—all in a day’s work. They are heroes because they take that mantle on with pride and commitment. They are the best of us because they cope with the unbelievable stress of constantly having to expect the unexpected.
What they should not have to expect, however, is extraordinary abuse, violence or risk to life and limb to be targeted at them for doing their jobs. It is not part of the job to be insulted. It is not par for the course to be assaulted. There is no excuse for this vile and disgusting behaviour—yet it is on the rise. There were 22,536 incidents of violence, aggression and abuse against paramedics and other ambulance workers in 2024-25, up 15% from a year before, according to the Association of Ambulance Chief Executives. Since many incidents go unreported, that number is likely an underestimate.
The latest NHS staff survey found that nearly one in seven workers in England were physically attacked by patients or the public last year—the highest level in three years. I recently met with representatives from the Royal College of Nursing, who told me about the scale of the challenge their members face, often on top of incredibly difficult working conditions. They pointed out that some trusts have had to take the extraordinary step of launching awareness campaigns encouraging patients not to abuse nursing staff, such as Chelsea and Westminster hospital’s “I Am Human” campaign. Could there be a sorrier reflection of the state of affairs than a campaign asking people not to harm those who are there to help them?
This entire debate is taking place in the context of the outrageous scenes we saw earlier this year in Portsmouth and across the south coast, in which thugs—that is who they are: thugs—targeted RNLI volunteers and staff for daring to comply with the law, their mandate and simple human conscience. The RNLI is a British institution, and those who take on this difficult work sum up what is best about this country, not least the Dunkirk spirit of ordinary people performing brave feats of rescue at sea; yet these heroes were subject to abuse both in person and online. They were confronted in public and doxed online, their children were bullied at school because of their parents’ rescue work, and they were forced to pause their services in Portsmouth altogether—all of that due to a handful of small people with small hearts and an even smaller and warped worldview whipped up by the extreme right.
The Liberal Democrats are clear that the targeting of emergency workers in the RNLI and across the emergency services is egregious on a human level, dangerous at a public health level and a critical risk to wider faith in public institutions at a Government level. It is egregious on a human level to do what those committing these crimes are doing—namely, refusing to see the human being behind the uniform or disregarding their right to go about doing their job safely. There is never an excuse for this kind of behaviour, and it is right that a specific offence was created in the Assaults on Emergency Workers (Offences) Act 2018.
It is dangerous at a public health level, because when threats, intimidation and violence go up, the attractiveness of a career in the emergency services predictably declines, compounding existing shortages in policing, paramedics and nursing. To take policing alone, when officers are already overstretched, these issues only compound the strain of facing the work day and lead to sickness-related absences. Between the challenges facing police officers and the fact that in London alone there are currently 189,000 rest days owed to officers, this gruelling picture is clear.
That is why the Liberal Democrats are calling for funding so that police services can offer their officers proactive mental health and wellbeing check-ups every six months, as well as a package of policies to recruit more officers to ease the burden on the existing workforce. It is why we supported and continue to support the 2018 Act that created a specific offence for assault of an emergency worker, and why I call on the Government to foster stronger links between hospital staff and local police so that they can work towards a stronger, more assuring police presence in medical settings, where appropriate and necessary.
It is also why we continue to publicly and proudly stand up for the RNLI by calling out the dangerous and un-British extremists who have targeted it, enflamed by the dehumanising rhetoric that too many on the right of politics espouse. Particularly dangerous are the repeated descriptions of the RNLI as a “taxi service” for migrants: a disgraceful misrepresentation of the role of those heroic volunteers and other staff. I am sad not to see Reform Members in this debate to condemn and to withdraw completely those remarks.
With all that in mind, we Liberal Democrats are keen to hear what specific additional steps the Government are taking to home in on the perpetrators of these crimes and to tackle the broader set of challenges facing our emergency services. I hope the Minister will give specific indications of what the Government plan to do.
Alicia Kearns (Rutland and Stamford) (Con)
It is an honour to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Twigg. I thank the hon. Member for Portsmouth North (Amanda Martin) for securing the debate.
Our emergency services repeatedly put themselves in harm’s way to protect, serve and save our communities. Whether confronting criminals, responding to medical emergencies, rescuing people from danger or entering burning buildings, they carry out extraordinary acts of public service, often in the most challenging and dangerous circumstances. They should never have to accept threats, harassment or physical violence as simply part of the job. It is not what they signed up for and it is criminality. When they go to work to protect us, we have a responsibility to ensure that they are afforded the protections, respect and security they deserve.
We have heard in this debate about the scale of the problem. The statistics discussed demonstrate how torrid the situation is. The experience of the RNLI is particularly horrifying and completely unforgivable. Those figures represent more than just physical injuries. Violence and intimidation can lead to trauma and, in some cases, to people questioning whether to continue in a profession that they once felt was a calling. There is also a cost to the public. Every minute spent dealing with an assault, reporting an incident or recovering from an injury is a minute that could have been spent responding to an emergency and protecting someone in need.
That is why the Conservative Government backed the Assaults on Emergency Workers (Offences) Act 2018 and then, through the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022, doubled the maximum penalty for such assaults to two years’ imprisonment and introduced Harper’s law, under which anyone who kills an emergency worker while committing a crime faces a life sentence. That was important recognition that assaults on those serving the public are abhorrent and that the law must deter them.
However, legislation is only as effective as its implementation. It is not enough to increase maximum penalties, as we did, if the sentences actually handed down do not reflect the seriousness of the offending. Sentencing Council data indicates that 25% of offenders or fewer receive immediate custody. Of course, not everyone should face imprisonment; it is not always appropriate. However, we must question whether judges are handing down sentences sufficiently strong to be a deterrent. Where someone deliberately assaulted an emergency worker carrying out their duties, the judge must impose a sentence that reflects the gravity of that, because the message should be sent that it will not be tolerated. No emergency worker should feel that reporting an assault is pointless or that they are left alone to deal with the consequences.
I also pay tribute to the volunteers who stand alongside our emergency services. Two particular groups protect the communities I serve. Rutland Community First Responders give their time freely, around the clock, to attend medical emergencies on behalf of the East Midlands ambulance service. In our rural communities—the hundreds of villages that I serve—those first responders can be the difference between life and death in the first critical minutes. They also teach residents how to perform cardiopulmonary resuscitation. It is impossible to raise the subject of Rutland Community First Responders without mentioning the indefatigable Barbara Crellin, who is a real heart of our communities and the heart of that service.
The Leicestershire and Rutland 4x4 Response volunteers use their own vehicles to keep vital services running in severe weather. During the pandemic they delivered more than 1,000 pieces of medicine and protective equipment. They ask for nothing in return. I thank them for what they do. They deserve the same protection and respect as every emergency worker spoken about in this debate.
This debate is very simple, and we should advance a simple principle: those who put themselves in harm’s way to protect the rest of us should not have to fear becoming victims themselves. They deserve our gratitude, but our gratitude alone is not enough; they deserve protection and assurances that the law will stand behind them
I would be grateful if the Minister would answer three questions. First, what assessment have the Government made of whether current sentencing outcomes undermine the deterrent effect of the legislation, and of whether they properly reflect the seriousness of these offences? Secondly, what steps are being taken to ensure that emergency workers who are assaulted receive proper support thereafter and that instances are properly investigated within emergency organisations? Thirdly, what further measures will the Government take to ensure that these protections translate into real improvements in the day-to-day safety of emergency workers? They run into danger to protect us all, and we must stand by them.
The Minister for Policing and Crime (Sarah Jones)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Twigg. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth North (Amanda Martin) for securing this debate. Can I just say what a wonderful MP she is? We see each other in multiple settings, because she is very busy campaigning on many different issues, and we are all very lucky that she is in this Chamber, as was said by the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon).
My hon. Friend has brought to the House an issue that should unite us all. However, as she eloquently described, it has not, and that shames those MPs and councillors who do not see the world as most of us do. I will focus my remarks on the specifics that she raised, but I also want to discuss the abuse of emergency workers more widely.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda and Ogmore (Chris Bryant), who is now Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, introduced the Assaults on Emergency Workers (Offences) Act 2018 as a private Member’s Bill. He campaigned on this issue for a long time, and it is good that we have the legislation on the statute book. However, we must ensure that it is doing what we need it to do, which is why we updated it through the Crime and Policing Act 2026 to ensure that it applies in all settings. My right hon. Friend did a powerful bit of campaigning to get the original legislation across the line back in 2018.
Members have made powerful points about the wider issue of the assault of emergency workers. As my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton North East (Sureena Brackenridge) said, nobody should be abused because of the uniform that they wear. That should be our starting point, and we should accept nothing less. The hon. Member for Strangford talked about mental health support for those who are abused, which is a very important part of the policing jigsaw. We will introduce a more powerful covenant through legislation. We currently have a policing covenant that is similar to the armed forces covenant, but we want to strengthen it to secure mental health support for police officers who find themselves in very difficult situations and who will inevitably struggle as a result.
We heard about some disasters in which Members’ constituents have had to face real tragedy, including the Penlee lifeboat disaster and the fire at Dunwich heath, both of which were real reflections of the harm and danger that we ask emergency workers to step into. I myself have been this year to three funerals of police officers who died in road incidents, which is catastrophic, and a total of seven have died this year.
There was some debate about the risks that firefighters take. I am very interested in and supportive of the FBU’s position on the support that our firefighters need, particularly in respect of carcinogens and whether there is a direct correlation, and whether compensation schemes should be set up. Such schemes are now available if someone dies from mesothelioma, which is linked to asbestos, so if there is a direct correlation for our firefighters, it is right that we look at those issues.
My hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth North said that true public service is putting on a uniform, answering an emergency call and helping someone you have never met. That is what happened in Portsmouth during the events of 6 September, which she has raised today, when emergency services and their partners responded to the small boat arrival in Eastney. They were there to protect life, to maintain public safety and to carry out their duties. Instead of being allowed to do that, officers were injured and emergency service vehicles were damaged. Hampshire police subsequently confirmed that seven police officers had been injured and treated at the scene, and we have heard some of those stories.
We have also seen reports of RNLI volunteers being subjected to abuse and their personal details circulated online. These are people who give their time to save others, and their families should not have to wonder whether a rescue at sea will bring a threat to their front door. The RNLI’s task is to save lives; immigration policy is the Government’s responsibility. We must never allow the two to be confused or allow lifesaving crews to become targets for anger about that policy.
Our response must be practical as well as unequivocal. First, criminal behaviour must be investigated, and those responsible brought to justice. As my hon. Friend said, there is absolutely nothing wrong with having a genuine concern about illegal immigration—people have good reason to be frustrated with what has happened and a right to demand secure borders—but that is very different from criminal behaviour, which must be investigated. Secondly, emergency services need effective arrangements to identify threats, share information and protect their people. My hon. Friend asked about that and she is absolutely right. Thirdly, we must tackle online targeting and intimidation, rather than treating it as separate to the risks on our streets. I want very briefly to touch on each of those points.
Hampshire and Isle of Wight constabulary has investigated the disorder at Eastney. It has reviewed extensive video evidence and charged individuals with violent disorder, and it would be inappropriate for me to comment on individual cases or prejudice ongoing court proceedings. The absence of an arrest on the day does not mean that offending will go unpunished. Police need to investigate who was responsible, secure the evidence and take action, and the number of arrests that take place on the night does not reflect the full police response—it is really important for me to say that.
Of course, operational decisions are down to the police. The Government’s responsibility is to provide the legal framework and support effective policing. We expect criminal conduct to be investigated robustly, and we expect the safety of emergency workers to be taken seriously. There are already specific protections for emergency workers. Common assault or battery used against an emergency worker acting in the exercise of their functions can attract a maximum sentence of two years’ imprisonment. More serious violence can be prosecuted under offences carrying higher maximum penalties. Those protections are not confined to paid employees; the statutory definition includes people providing search and rescue services, for example.
Turning to the right to peaceful protest—I am aware of the time—I must emphasise the word “peaceful”. It does not provide a licence to assault a police officer, threaten a paramedic, damage a rescue vehicle or obstruct a lifesaving response. We have seen groups of men dressed in black with their faces concealed seeking to intimidate communities and those carrying out vital public duties. That behaviour is thuggish and unacceptable. Wearing particular clothing alone is not an offence, but masks must not be used to embolden threats, violence or intimidation, and the police have a range of powers to address that conduct. We are seeing that play out not just in the protesting field, but through some public spaces protection orders, where the police can intervene in particular locations.
The police can impose conditions on processions and assemblies and ask for the removal of face coverings, and they can use dispersal powers where appropriate. They have to use those powers lawfully. I know that there will be Members who are concerned about getting the balance right between protest and criminality, and about how the police can intervene. We asked Lord Macdonald to review the entire protest and hate crime landscape. We are considering his report and will respond to it in due course. I think all Members here will be interested in the balance that he believes we need to strike and what we need to do to get there.
We do not have time to talk about online intimidation as much as I would like. The Online Safety Act 2023 is there up to a point, and I know that Members across the House and the Government are considering whether those powers in the criminal law adequately address the malicious publication of personal information. We need to look at that, and my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth North is absolutely right to challenge us on it.
I thank my hon. Friend for giving emergency workers in Portsmouth and across the country a voice in this House. Today, the country fell silent in memory of those brave souls who gave their lives so that we may live in freedom and safety. Theirs is a legacy of selfless sacrifice, and it lives on in the public servants we have been discussing today—the devoted men and women who protect us and answer the call when it comes. They deserve our thanks, respect and protection.
Amanda Martin
I thank the Minister for her work and her words. I am glad that we have had cross-party support in this debate today. I welcome the Opposition spokesperson’s standing firm against abuse and violence towards our emergency workers. My dad was a police officer, so this is very important to me. We have come a very long way from clapping our emergency workers during covid to the state that we are in now, but I do have hope and I want to work across Government to make sure that our emergency workers go to work every day feeling safe and protected as they protect our communities.
Grand Committee
(1 day, 6 hours ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
Arrangement of Business
(1 day, 6 hours ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Vaux of Harrowden) (CB)
My Lords, if there is a Division in the Chamber while we are sitting, this Committee will adjourn as soon as the Division Bells are rung and resume after 10 minutes.
Rebuilding Forensic Science for Criminal Justice (Science and Technology Committee Report)
(1 day, 6 hours ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Mair (CB)
My Lords, I am delighted to introduce for debate our Science and Technology Committee report Rebuilding Forensic Science for Criminal Justice: An Urgent Need. At the outset, I welcome the noble Lord, Lord Hanson of Flint, responding on behalf of the Home Office. I thank the committee members who participated in the report, including those who have since left the committee. I also thank the noble and learned Lord, Lord Burnett of Maldon, who was co-opted on to the committee, as well as the noble Baroness, Lady Black, for her informative briefings to the committee and support of the inquiry. I thank the excellent committee staff who assisted in preparing this report: the clerks, John Turner and Daisy Robins; the policy analyst, Thomas Hornigold; and the committee operations officer, Sid Gurung.
The inquiry started in November 2025, we published our report in February 2026, and the Government responded in April 2026. The inquiry heard from a range of witnesses, including forensic scientists, companies, the regulator, defence barristers and witnesses from the Home Office and Ministry of Justice. Crucially, the inquiry was in part a follow-up to the inquiry that the committee undertook in 2018-19, in which I also took part.
Today, I will first set out the issues our inquiry found with the forensic science system, which many others have also identified. I will then discuss the Government’s response and their proposed policing reforms, which involve setting up a national police service with forensics as part of its remit. These risk kicking a lot of these urgent issues into the long grass. I will conclude with questions for the Minister.
Forensic science is unquestionably a critical pillar of the criminal justice system. We rely on good forensic science to establish the facts of a case. Miscarriages of justice can arise when mistakes are made, both in wrongfully convicting the innocent and in allowing the guilty to walk free. For this reason, a well-functioning forensic science system is critical to the interests of justice in the UK. Unfortunately, the forensic science system in England and Wales is not working for anyone. It is not working for the police, it is not working for forensic scientists, and it is not working for lawyers. Ultimately, it is not working for the public and for the criminal justice system. Our inquiry heard exactly this from Professor Angela Gallop, a prominent forensic scientist. We heard little to contradict it.
To understand the problems, it is necessary to know some history. Prior to 2012, most forensic science in England and Wales was conducted by the Forensic Science Service, which provided forensic science services to the police forces. This was shut down and replaced by a combination of in-house police laboratories and private commercial providers commissioned by the police. This model now suffers from a range of problems, many of which we identified in 2019 and have only worsened since.
First, no one takes responsibility for ensuring that the system works. Responsibility is split between the Home Office, via its responsibility for the police, and the Ministry of Justice—defence, legal aid and courts. But no Minister has forensic science explicitly in their remit. Responsibility for procuring forensic science or providing it in-house is divided between 43 different police forces, which are only loosely co-ordinated through bodies such as the National Police Chiefs’ Council. We identified this in 2019, but the joint structures promised in 2019 were not kept up, so no one really owns the overall responsibility for funding forensic science, managing the forensic science market or workforce planning.
Secondly, the market for forensic science services has collapsed. In 2019 there were three major commercial providers but now there are effectively two. One of them is Eurofins, with over 80% of the market share: a near monopoly. The only other major company emerged from administration in 2018 with a reduced range of services. This is not an efficient, competitive market. The providers run on thin or even negative margins. Our report asked what assessment the Government had made of this concentration risk. What is the contingency plan if Eurofins, the near-monopoly provider and a big multinational, decided not to provide forensic services any more? We did not receive a satisfactory answer.
Thirdly, and in part due to this market collapse, there is now fragmented in-house police provision of forensic services. Most forensic science spending is in-house: some £500 million compared to £100 million spent on external providers, which is to say more than 80%. As providers reduce their services more gets taken in-house, which is a vicious circle. This creates several problems: first, it lacks independence from the police. Scientists know that bias need not be a conscious or corrupt act. It can arise from what you choose to examine, what you choose to ignore and how you choose to interpret the results; it can arise unconsciously. In Scotland there is a sterile corridor between its forensic science and police services, but there are no such provisions in England and Wales. We suggested this as a model that the Government could adopt with their proposed new national forensic service. There has been no commitment to do this.
Practice varies between police forces; there is limited co-ordination as to the forensic science capabilities of each force and there is limited oversight of them. What is done in-house, what is done externally and even how exhibits are submitted all vary from force to force, creating what the Minister for Policing and Crime herself called a “postcode lottery”. This fragmentation is inefficient, with police forces duplicating labs and capabilities. Ministers admitted that they did not know how much was spent on certain activities and by which forces. There is voluntary guidance from the National Police Chiefs’ Council, and the independent forensic science regulator can set standards that would bind police labs. Most forensic science activities should be accredited according to the Forensic Science Regulator’s code. But in practice our witnesses were concerned that the regulator is underresourced and might hesitate to use its powers to disrupt a fragile forensic science system. We asked the Government to publish the accreditation status of every police force’s in-house forensic science. It agreed in principle but, six months on, no force-by-force data has been published. Accreditation itself creates issues; witnesses described it as slow and burdensome. Compliance is still patchy and the high costs involved drive smaller providers out of the market.
A fourth major issue is that there is no equality of access for the defence. In court, the police have access to their in-house forensic experts and the large forensic science providers, but the defence must rely on a small, fragmented and underpaid community of individual forensic experts. The problems with legal aid are well documented, but what is less well known is that defence experts are paid less by legal aid than the prosecution. In our inquiry we heard that the rates are £83 per hour, paid by legal aid, for the defence experts, while £130 per hour is paid by the Crown Prosecution Service for prosecution experts. Given the struggles to obtain legal aid in the first place, we heard that many companies and experts do not pursue defence work because the pay is so limited.
This lack of overall co-ordination gives rise to a host of other issues. Perhaps no issue better illustrates the dysfunction than how forensic evidence is stored. Often, technology advances, enabling subsequent better analysis that can convict or exonerate someone. Storing forensic evidence properly is therefore critical. Under the old Forensic Science Service, there was one national forensic archive that stored forensic evidence to a high standard, but when the FSS closed, responsibility was dispersed to each of the 43 police forces to store their own materials. They are not experts in how to do this. They were not funded to do it. Some forces invested in it but some struggled and the result is that many pieces of critical forensic evidence are getting lost or damaged, jeopardising criminal justice.
One defence barrister told us of an unsolved cold case in which a key exhibit was eventually traced to a police officer’s home, where it had been used to train other officers. A quite staggering aspect of this is that the forensic archive still exists. It still stores all the evidence from the old Forensic Science Service’s archive and has been expanded to hold material from a collapsed provider of forensic services. The forensic archive once expanded responsibility for storing evidence. I am sure that the police would be relieved to have this burden taken away. The Home Office Minister, Sarah Jones, was asked whether the Government should fund a national archive and said, “yes, quite possibly”. The Courts Minister, Sarah Sackman, said that expanding the archive was a great idea and that
“we need consistency across the country”.
Yet all the Government have said that they would do is review the forensic archive’s remit. Many months on from our report, there is no commitment to expand the archive. In reducing duplication, it would likely save money. A modest investment in already existing facilities could prevent the national scandal of justice not being done because no one has funded proper storage of the evidence.
Another major issue created by this lack of overall co-ordination is that certain specialisms of forensic science are dying out. We heard that areas such as marks and traces and analysis of fibres, glass, paint and footwear are all suffering. We heard from Professor Angela Gallop that the Stephen Lawrence case would not have been solved without fibre evidence. Some 10 to 15 years ago, there were 40 fibre scientists but now there are just about four or five. Because there is no national-level co-ordination of forensic science, no one is in charge of making sure that we retain vital capacity in these areas, which fall between the cracks of the police and forensic science providers.
DNA testing is clearly a marvellous tool, but it cannot solve every case. Our witnesses were clear that, without these specialisms that I have outlined, some cases would never have been solved. If they die out, there will be preventable miscarriages of justice in the future. As long as forensic science is determined by what disparate, underfunded market actors are willing to pay for, rather than what justice requires, this is where we are headed. The Government recognised that niche disciplines were under threat. They did so in 2019, but the police steering group tasked with looking at this was quietly disbanded. In 2026, the Government have also accepted that these disciplines matter, but there is still no sign of any action to preserve them.
The same is true when it comes to training the next generation of forensic scientists and harnessing new technologies. There is a lack of national co-ordination. Digital forensics is a huge and growing area of concern, yet there has been a stubborn backlog of 20,000 digital devices still awaiting examination. AI could potentially be used to reduce this, but it also poses new challenges in the form of deepfake evidence. The Government have introduced PoliceAI, which funds some pilots on digital evidence, but its funding is not ring-fenced for forensic science. As most digital forensics is done in-house by the police, there is an urgent need for standards and training, including in the use of new tools. Our report recommended the establishment of a national institute for forensic science to maintain tools and guidance for best practice, help to run training courses for forensic scientists and conduct research and development into new forms of forensics. But, again, the Government have not agreed to this.
I now turn to what the Government are doing about all of this. A major development that could be extremely positive, but which also creates a huge deal of uncertainty, is the policing reform White Paper, which has committed to the establishment of a new national police service and, as part of that, a national forensics capacity. Our committee welcomed this idea in principle because of the total dysfunction of the existing system, but when the White Paper was published, around the time of our report, we were also—to quote our report—concerned
“that the much-needed rebuilding of forensic science in England and Wales gets kicked into the long grass while we await uncertain, long-term structural reforms”.
Ten months on from the White Paper’s publication, there is still no Bill before Parliament to set out what will actually happen. The proposed mergers of police forces are still very uncertain and will likely take years, and there is still no launch date for the national police service and its forensics service. There has been continuity in the Home Office at ministerial level, which suggests that these reforms will go ahead, but it is all very uncertain and, in the meantime, the problems that we have identified are continuing to get worse. Although we have suggested that any forensics service should be operationally independent of the police, perhaps through a “sterile corridor” between them, the Government have not committed to this.
Reform will, of course, take time, but our report urged the Government to act now to stabilise the forensic science sector as well as setting it on a firmer footing in the long run. Uncertainty around the long-term reform should not be an excuse for inaction now on issues such as the storage of forensic evidence, addressing legal aid funding for defence experts, preserving niche disciplines and setting up a national institute for forensic science, as many other countries have done, to safeguard expertise while the policing reforms are undertaken. All these could be undertaken now, but on the vast majority of our recommendations there has been little sign of movement.
In summary, the issues with the system that our report identified are not new. Many were identified in our earlier report in 2019 and have not been addressed. The Westminster Commission on Forensic Science report also identified many of these issues last year. The Government have a real opportunity to grasp this problem, prevent future miscarriages of justice and rebuild a forensic science system in which the public can have confidence. We have been sounding this alarm for a long time about such glaring issues in an area that is core to criminal justice, but the Government’s position has shifted from neglect to an abdication of responsibility. We will get the justice that we are willing to pay for, so investment in shoring up the system now is vital to avoid preventable tragedies where the innocent are convicted and the guilty walk free.
I conclude with just a few specific questions that I hope the Minister will be able to answer. First, when can we expect to see the police reform Bill introduced, and when will the proposed national forensic service actually start operating? Secondly, will the Minister commit to making the national forensic service operationally independent of the police, as in the Scottish model, and to putting that independence in the Bill? Thirdly, what measures are the Government taking to shore up the marketplace for forensic science? If Eurofins, with 80% of the external market, withdrew tomorrow, what is the Government’s contingency plan? Fourthly, Ministers, officials and witnesses all praised the forensic archive and suggested that it should be given funding and responsibility to store forensic evidence, and it is keen to do so. Is there an ongoing review of its capacity? Will the Minister commit to allowing it to expand? Finally, while the wider police reforms are under way, what will the Government do in the next 12 months on three important issues: preserving forensic specialisms; supporting defence experts with parity of pay; and setting up a national institute for forensic science.
Our Select Committee has looked at this twice, in 2019 and last year. Our report warned that, the next time that we have to do so, it will not be a diagnosis but a post-mortem. The Minister still has time to prove us wrong, but not much time. I beg to move.
Viscount Stansgate (Lab)
My Lords, I was proud to be a member of this Select Committee, which I was until earlier this year, and I commend my friend, the noble Lord, Lord Mair, for his chairship, the report and the way in which he introduced it. It was so comprehensively introduced that I find it difficult to know what more I can add, apart from the fact that I pretty well agree with every single word of it. The noble Lord said that forensic science is not working for anyone. Frankly, that is an understatement. It is a mess and the Government need to take decisive action because forensic science is crucial to our criminal justice system. As a committee, we were very disappointed by the Government’s refusal to support our recommendation for a national institute for forensic science. I, for one, hope that this might still be reconsidered, because it makes sense.
This House has many roles to perform. It holds the Government to account, it conducts pre-legislative scrutiny—not enough, and we should have more—and, of course, it engages in post-legislative scrutiny and following things up. This is a classic example of something that needed to be done. We decided to conduct the inquiry precisely because we thought that the subject needed to be looked at again, and we were right. Do not forget that an underlying purpose of this is to avoid future miscarriages of justice, and the Committee should not forget what can be at stake. There have been some celebrated examples over the years. I looked back and dug up a few; I will mention one or two that Members may recall.
Do noble Lords remember Stefan Kiszko? He spent 16 years in prison before scientific proof showed that he could not have been guilty, and DNA testing later identified the actual killer. Sally Clark was wrongfully convicted of murdering her two infant sons and the prosecution relied heavily on flawed medical testimony and misleading statistical claims. She was cleared after fresh evidence revealed that one of the babies died of a staphylococcal infection. Peter Sullivan spent 38 years in prison for murder. At the time of his trial, advanced DNA profiling was unavailable or inconclusive, and his conviction was finally quashed only last year after modern testing isolated a male profile that completely excluded him. Going back even further, the Birmingham Six and the Guildford Four cases, arising out of what we now call the Northern Ireland Troubles in the 1970s and 1980s, relied heavily in some cases on manipulated forensic tests. The establishment of the Forensic Science Advisory Council was recommended in 1993 as a result.
One of our findings is—I want to emphasise this—that we need some structural clarity. The Home Office and the Ministry of Justice need to decide who takes responsibility for forensic science, as the noble Lord said in introducing the report. It seemed to us that the Ministry of Justice should take the lead when it comes to ensuring what we call an “equality of arms”. Can my noble friend the Minister, who has had great experience of government and represents the Home Office ably in this House, give us clarity as to who is responsible for this important area? Will he make a commitment on behalf of the Government to an equality of arms? The prosecution and defence need equal access to the forensic science evidence, which can, after all, convict as well as exonerate. Justice demands that forensic science makes both possible.
We all know that since our report the Government have announced their plans for a radical restructuring of police forces. I, too, ask my noble friend what progress is being made in rationalising the existing 43 police forces in England and Wales into a smaller number. What number might that be? When will we know? When will the Bill be introduced?
I should at this point express my great gratitude to the staff of the committee, some of whom are here today. Thomas Hornigold has been mentioned, and I endorse that, as well as thanking all the other staff. They have done an excellent job and continue to do so. I also thank the Library for its briefing, which has also been very helpful.
This is not the first time that I have crossed paths with forensic science in my professional life—talk about déjà vu. I remember a House of Commons Select Committee considering this matter in its report in 2011 and, going back even further, I remember consideration of forensic science in this House in the early 1990s. In a different capacity I helped the Royal Society of Chemistry provide evidence that was considered at that time by a Select Committee chaired by Lord Dainton, a formidable figure who produced a landmark report on forensic science, which examined the state funding, organisation and delivery of forensic science services in the UK. It was Lord Dainton himself who highlighted the operational delays plaguing investigations by stating:
“Evidence delayed is evidence denied”.
I think that noble Lords would agree that that is still true today.
The key concerns at that time included investigating sample backlogs, turnaround times and the structural and commercial changes affecting police access to forensic science laboratories. Following the Dainton report, the forensic science landscape underwent radical transformation and transitioned from a highly centralised government service into a fully commercialised open market, which, as the noble Lord indicated, is falling apart. If one of the companies pulled out, we would be in a terrible mess. I will not go through all of this in detail, as this is a debate not a history lesson and my time is rapidly running out.
However, we should not forget that in the years of the Forensic Science Service we created the first national DNA database. We were a global leader in pioneering techniques such as Alec Jeffreys’ genetic fingerprinting and advanced DNA amplification, yet in 2012 the Government completely shut the service down. That closure, which privatised the majority of internal work, has been responsible for so much of the damage that we are facing today. In retrospect, we can see that the closure lies at the heart of many of the problems that we still face. I have a list of some examples that I will not go into, except to say that research that does not yield a direct short-term commercial profit is nevertheless still vital and things such as fibres and hairs collected on clothing is being abandoned to our great cost in future. The closure of the Forensic Science Service was a terrible mistake.
As my time is up, I shall just say that we reported on this in 2019. We reported on this again this year, and I hope that when my noble friend replies he can give the Committee some reassurance that the Government will take decisive action, otherwise we will be here again discussing this in a much worse situation than we are in now.
Baroness Neville-Jones (Con)
My Lords, I thank the chairman for his thorough and lucid examination of the situation and for the way in which he presented our report and the reasoning behind it. As he said, this is not the first report. In fact, it is not even the second report—there have been reports by other bodies in the meantime. I, too, thank the committee staff. I think that there is a universal feeling on the part of members of the committee that we had an exceptionally helpful and thorough job done for us.
I think that all of us feel that good justice is of extreme importance to what we stand for in this country. We were once regarded as global leaders in forensic science. We had evidence—not this time, but on the previous occasion—from witnesses from abroad who said how much they regretted the decline of standards in this country, which they no longer regarded as ones that they followed, but would lead with their own.
I wish that I could say something optimistic about the situation in which forensic science finds itself in relation to the criminal justice system, but I have to say to the Minister that all the signals are pointing in the wrong direction. I was on the committee when we produced the 2019 report, when the state of affairs was worrying. Now, frankly, I would describe it as parlous and shameful for a country that prides itself on dispensing justice. Our ability to do so is at risk.
I will not go over the ground that has been so well covered but will focus on what I regard as the extreme urgency of the current situation. In our report, we recognised that police reform provided a welcome opportunity for a more thoroughgoing improvement of the role of forensic science in the justice system than might be the case if these wider changes were not going on. The headline was opportunity, but I think that there is a danger of that opportunity simply not being taken.
Since we wrote our report, nothing much seems to have moved. Now, 2034 is regarded as the target date for new arrangements for the national police service— perhaps the Minister will comment on that. That is seven years from now, not allowing for slippage. But I have to say that, without some life-saving support before then, the availability of the forensic science offering that we have now, with a reasonable, although declining, range of specialisms, could well collapse before then. The change simply will not wait for so long.
As our chairman said, one of the most worrying features of the scene is the slender supply chain. You cannot call it a market when 80% of the work is done in-house, 80% of the remaining 20% is done by one company, and the other company that has the remainder of the market has been through administration. This is the kind of market that can very easily just crumble. It is not fanciful to say that we risk this oligopolistic situation seriously collapsing. That would put us in a situation—it is already a danger—in which the impartiality of the judicial system as regards forensic evidence is increasingly suspect.
Neither of the interested government departments seems to take responsibility for ensuring that forensic science remains alive and reputable. That is why, among other things, the committee proposed that a national institute of forensic science should be instituted straightaway. That was in our 2019 report. It is a sensible idea and has been adopted by many countries, and I suggest that it is urgent that we do so, too. It would not get in the way of the powers or the position of the director of forensic science, which I think was intimated to us; rather, on the contrary, it would lend power to her elbow if she had a body outside which was able to deal with some of the issues and ensure that the market survives, that standards are upheld and that best practice is a running issue.
Unfortunately, however, the Government have declined that idea. I very much ask the Minister please to think again. Whatever we do, action is needed, and we must not have a situation in which the creation of a national police force in the future becomes the reason why we can go on delaying until we have that prior reform. We very much need to deal with forensic science before we can get to the final stages of police reform.
I will say one more thing. This morning, the noble Baroness, Lady Casey, was on Radio 4 talking about the critical state of social care, which she attributed in large part to no department of government taking responsibility for its functioning, which has led to the current state of affairs about which she was scathing. My worry is that the evidence that we took shows that forensic science as regards the judicial system of this country is very close to tipping point. The descent now lies downwards, and that is the territory of future scandals. Two decades after the Government’s Forensic Science Service was abolished in 2014, the risks of a miscarriage of justice taking place are seriously rising, and we all wish to avoid that.
Baroness Neuberger (CB)
My Lords, I too thank my noble friend Lord Mair for chairing our committee so ably. I want to pay a great tribute to the staff of the committee and the clerks—Thomas Hornigold and Siddhant Gurung. We had fantastic help with all this.
In response to the committee’s report, the Government state that they agree
“on the need for strong national leadership and clear safeguards to ensure the independence and impartiality of forensic science”.
They continue by saying that:
“The current governance model has contributed to significant variation in how forensic work is organised, assured and overseen. This has reduced opportunities for efficiency from scaling innovations or best practice, impacted staff flexibility and development, inhibited private sector investment, prevented effective performance and service management and made assurance more complex and expensive”.
Quite so—in other words, the Government absolutely accept this committee’s analysis.
But the Government then added:
“The Forensic Science Regulator already provides national leadership and accountability for the quality and oversight of national forensic services. We will create national governance for forensic services in the National Police Service”.
So far, so good, although we would argue for greater independence. Yet, despite the Government saying that they want the new national police service to host a nationally led forensics service, nothing has happened—I think we are going to be a bit like a stuck record here—nor is there much sign of anything happening. Given that this was not our preferred option, but that the Government were keen to press ahead with their national police service and to give it these functions, can the Minister give us any indication of when we might see some progress here?
As others have said, we also recommended a national institute of forensic science, as many other countries have, to provide co-ordinated national leadership across a range of functions, including research and development, specialist and low-volume disciplines, expert competence through training in core methods and novel techniques, best-practice guidance, training and national capacity assessment. This was precisely because of concerns over fragmentation and the risk that vital specialist capabilities, innovation and expertise are being neither sustained nor shared consistently. The current system leaves significant gaps in research, in training for forensic scientists and in co-ordination for forensic science capabilities. The preservation of forensic science specialisms, which cannot turn a profit in the commercial market, is still absolutely vital for the interests of justice.
The UK is almost alone in not having a national institute. We heard from the Australian national institute about the useful work that it does overseas. Critically, our committee recommended that a national institute for forensic science could be set up now, without waiting for police reform. An independent institute would play a number of important roles in the system and would counterbalance a forensic science service entirely under the aegis of the police. An institute could set research and development priorities for forensic science on a national basis, employ experts to preserve specialist skills that the forensic science market cannot pay for and provide impartial expertise to both prosecution and defence to assist in equality of arms and help safeguard the independence of forensic science.
Despite the strong argument we made for the creation of a national institute for forensic science, this was rejected by the Government, who maintained their line that the new national forensics service under the national police service would resolve all these problems. We believe that this is the wrong approach and ask that it be reconsidered. Other colleagues have said the same. We do not think that it is too late.
Meanwhile, can the Minister tell us just how long it will take to create a national governance role for forensics in the national forensics service as part of the national police service, and to give it a legal mandate to deliver the service to policing? Unless I am much mistaken, there is no sign of a police reform Bill yet. All this seems to be taking an unconscionably long time.
My noble friend Lord Mair has covered almost all the other issues, as have other speakers, but I want briefly to pick up on the inconsistent arrangements for the storage and retention of evidence across police forces. We called for the expansion or re-establishment of a national forensic archive and the use of trained forensic archivists, supported by clear national standards, to ensure that evidential material is stored securely and managed consistently across England and Wales. The Government actually agreed, especially when it comes to appeals and cold case reviews, but all we got in response was the statement:
“The Director of Forensic Services will work with policing partners, the Forensic Archive and the Home Office to consider how evidence retention and storage can be more robust”.
Although the Government acknowledge that
“The ability to retrieve forensic evidence underpins the integrity of investigations in particular appeals and cold case reviews”,
they gave us little comfort. Can the Minister give us more comfort today?
A credible and fair forensic service should be a basic provision of our justice system. Like other speakers, I think that this is part of what the UK stands for, and I am really sad that we have come to this. Despite the evidence of many scientists and others that we are not doing well, and that the supply of future forensic scientists has all but dried up, we have been given little reason to think that the Government think this as important as we do. Can the Minister tell us that they do think it is as important as we do, and can he tell us when they are likely to act?
Lord Ranger of Northwood (Con)
My Lords, I begin by thanking our chair, the noble Lord, Lord Mair, for his leadership of this important inquiry, our committee staff for their excellent work, especially our policy analyst Thomas Hornigold, and all the witnesses.
I must confess that forensic science is not an area in which I would claim any particular expertise—far from it. Like many people, much of my personal understanding of forensic science has come from watching great programmes such as “Quincy, M.E.” or, latterly, “CSI” and the occasional Hollywood crime thriller. If those programmes are to be believed, forensic scientists have unlimited resources and extraordinary technology, and can solve almost any crime in about 45 minutes, including the commercial breaks. Unfortunately, our inquiry revealed that the reality in England and Wales could hardly be more different. What shocked me most was not simply the gap between fiction and reality but the extraordinary fragility of a system upon which something as fundamental as justice depends.
I will focus my comments on the people, skills and expertise upon which forensic science relies, and how we safeguard them for the future. Throughout my career, when working on major technology programmes, in business or in government, I have learned one fundamental lesson: technology and systems are important but, ultimately, it is people, their knowledge, experience and judgment, that make them work. This is equally the case in the world of forensic science.
Our inquiry heard deeply concerning evidence about the workforce. The evidence showed that we have a significant number of undergraduate forensic science courses, undoubtedly encouraged by the popularity of the subject, yet career opportunities are limited, salaries relatively low and pathways into sustainable employment far from clear. We also heard concerns that some courses do not provide the rigorous scientific foundations required for professional forensic work. There is something fundamentally wrong when we encourage young people to pursue a scientific career without ensuring that the training and employment opportunities exist to support them. As such, our committee recommended a review of forensic science degrees and better practical training, including opportunities for trainees to follow cases from crime scene to courtroom.
However, perhaps more alarming is what is happening to the expertise we already possess. As the noble Lord, Lord Mair, has stated, we heard that just 10 to 15 years ago, there were around 40 specialist fibre scientists working in forensic science; now, it is four. Even a lay person knows that forensic science and fibre evidence play a critical role in solving the most serious of crimes. Yet this entire field of specialist scientific expertise is approaching the point where it could simply disappear. Once that knowledge is lost, it cannot easily be recreated.
I have spent much of my professional life advocating for technological innovation, digital transformation and, increasingly, the appropriate use of artificial intelligence. AI offers enormous potential to analyse information, identify patterns and support forensic investigations. At this point, I refer to my register of interests, particularly my roles with VE3 and Great Wave AI.
But we must recognise two important realities. First, AI must enhance scientific expertise, not become an excuse for allowing expertise to disappear. An algorithm may identify a pattern, but scientific understanding, validation and professional judgment remain essential to interpreting what actually matters. Secondly, new technology creates new challenges. Deepfakes, synthetic media and increasingly sophisticated digital devices make establishing the authenticity of evidence more difficult. Without the expertise to understand, challenge and validate that evidence, we risk undermining confidence in the justice system itself.
I will make three practical points. First, we require a national forensic science workforce strategy—one that connects universities, professional training, research institutions, policing and commercial providers, ensuring rigorous qualifications, genuine career pathways and the retention of experienced professionals.
Secondly, we must urgently protect specialist scientific capabilities. Where disciplines may be commercially unviable but essential to justice, the state must seek to ensure that the expertise survives. Justice cannot simply depend solely on whether a scientific specialism generates a commercial return.
Thirdly, we need a clear national strategy for technology and AI in forensic science. That means investment in research, approved tools, training and expertise required to use emerging technologies safely and effectively. Our committee has, as many fellow Peers have said, recommended establishing a national institute for forensic science, and I echo that. It would play a vital role in co-ordinating these priorities. But I am also concerned that the Government have deferred much of this approach to their work within the wider policing reforms mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Mair.
I have two main questions for the Minister. First, will the Government commit to publishing a national forensic science workforce and skills plan, alongside a clear programme for preserving endangered specialisms and skills? Secondly, of the £75 million committed to the police AI programme, how much will be specifically allocated to forensic science and how will the Government ensure that this investment develops the skills and scientific capabilities we need?
Ultimately, this is not simply about science, technology or workforce planning. As has been said, it is about ensuring that the innocent are protected, the guilty are brought to justice and the public can have confidence in the evidence upon which our courts rely. We cannot afford to discover the true value of these skills only after they have been lost. I look forward to the Minister’s response.
Lord Thomas of Cwmgiedd (CB)
As the first speaker who has not been a member of this committee, I commend it for the excellence of its report and the admirable analysis made by the noble Lord, Lord Mair, of its contents. I decided I ought to speak for two reasons. First, for some years, as a judge I took a particular interest in the development of forensic science. Secondly, recently retired, I served and was co-opted on to the committee that reported in 2019. I was therefore shocked to realise that nothing had been done.
I have every sympathy with this Government, because the problem goes back to the obviously mistaken decision to abolish the Forensic Science Service. It was a disastrous mistake for another reason I will come to quickly. Having said that, if we do not do something now, the person on the watch who has been told they must do something will carry the can. So I have another degree of sympathy for the Minister because, in the nature of forensic science, something will go seriously wrong, and the lack of safeguards will be blamed.
I will say why. First, the noble Lord, Lord Ranger, has made my first point about the centrality of forensic science to the perception of juries. They look at the television, and they come to court believing that forensic science will tell you the answer. Secondly, because those on television are generally reputable and honest, they trust the scientists. It is therefore critical to the justice of a trial that forensic science is reliable. Reliability depends first of all on scientific rigour—I will return to that shortly. It also rests on transparency and on the integrity of the witness giving the forensic evidence. Very importantly, it rests upon the independence of the forensic science providers.
It is critical to look back and analyse what happened in the past, as it can be easy to forget. As mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Mair, there are cases of unconscious bias. I sat on an appeal where there was an allegation of bias against a forensic scientist; it was alleged that he was acting under pressure from his chief constable. It was extremely uncomfortable to witness, but we set aside the conviction because there was strong evidence —we never had to decide whether the chief constable had pressured him into solving something.
I do not want to see the police having any role other than that of organisation: they must be at arm’s length from the service. It is of central importance for the protection of the police and their integrity and for the protection of the criminal justice process. No doubt one has to use the police force, as in Scotland; we are where we are, and they probably have more money than anyone else, but the forensic service must be independent. That is one thing I hope the Government will take that away: it must be at arm’s length.
There is another consideration. The best experts are experts who give evidence for both sides. If you have given evidence for the Crown and for the defence, you are much more likely to be credible; people have greater confidence in you. I have witnessed a regrettable occasion where enormous pressure was brought to bear; the person fortunately refused to succumb to that pressure not to give evidence in support of the defence. This concept of being at arm’s length is therefore critical.
I hope that we will go forward with these reforms, because there is yet one further point. If we do not have a good forensic science service here, and if the money can be found, people are sometimes prepared to go to quacks and to those who do not have decent standards. I have seen cases where experts have come from America and from elsewhere and who have given evidence that was, frankly, dishonest. That is one of the risks we face in not acting now.
But there is a more positive side. In 2015, the Royal Society held a conference on forensic science that lasted a couple of days and was designed to show that the UK was world-leading in forensic science, and I believe we were. We had made enormous strides on DNA; we worked out how you explained it to juries, we were at the forefront and our experts were acknowledged across the world. What worries me is that this is another area where the lead in UK technology and its reputation for developing forensic science is lost. If people are to have trust in what we do, they want to see how the service works in practice. Even if one is not concerned about criminal justice—and I do not know anyone who is not concerned about the disastrous state of our criminal justice system and whether there is something that could be done—there is a good, sound economic reason for doing something to strengthen our economy in this important area, in which we have the potential to be worldwide leaders.
I hope that, rather than waiting, the Government will take action and start to ensure that we do justice, ensuring that we put ourselves in a position to pay for it more easily by being leaders.
Baroness Northover (LD)
My Lords, I, too, am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Mair, for chairing this inquiry so effectively and for introducing this report so forensically. I also pay tribute to our amazing staff for their outstanding support. It was also enormously helpful to have the noble and learned Lord, Lord Burnett, join us for this inquiry, and I am glad that he has just joined us now. He will therefore hear what the Minister says.
When this topic was suggested, following as it did on a previous report, I confess that I was sceptical. I was not convinced that this was the best use of our time. As we heard the evidence, I realised how very wrong I had been. We have documented a profound problem—one that undermines our whole justice system and that the Government do not seem fully to have grasped, judged by their response thus far. There are lessons for all of us.
I was fortunate to have served as a Minister in the coalition. As the smaller party in that coalition, there was much discussion among us in relation to policy proposals that came forward from our larger partner. That partner had pledged a bonfire of the quangos—always a popular-seeming idea. But which quangos? Among the bodies selected for combustion was the Forensic Science Service. We were told that private providers would create a more competitive and inventive system. At the time, there were those who warned of the risk; they have been proved right, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, has said. Today, there is scarcely a functioning market at all. The forensic science sector has become fragile, concentrated and vulnerable, as others have detailed. Police forces have increasingly taken this work in-house to reduce costs, but this can mean major gaps in expertise and capacity.
I can now hardly see any report of a crime or court case without wondering about the quality and reliability of the forensic evidence. What we heard is devastating in relation to the criminal justice system and for justice as a whole. As others have said, the forensic science services have experienced years of fragmentation and underinvestment. That has major consequences for victims and defendants. Victims may not see justice and defendants may be wrongly convicted. We concluded that the forensic science system is in crisis. As the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Jones, rightly warned, it is close to a tipping point. We found a near-monopolised and fragile commercial market, inconsistent oversight of police-run services and an enormous backlog. We concluded that the system is not working for anyone, as the noble Lord, Lord Mair, said.
Since the closure of the Forensic Science Service in 2012, a number of providers have failed, withdrawn from services or been absorbed into larger organisations because the economics are simply unsustainable. As the noble Viscount, Lord Stansgate, and the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Jones, warned, suppose the dominant provider decides to pull out of the UK. Even now, the result is a market that often rewards lowest price rather than quality. It discourages investment in research, innovation and specialist expertise. Some forensic specialisms are now at significant risk, as the noble Lord, Lord Ranger, and others have pointed out. We should recognise the indispensable role of truly independent experts. Police officers perform an essential role, but they are investigators, not specialists in every scientific discipline. Expertise cannot simply be absorbed into routine policing functions and be fair, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, pointed out.
We also noted that the storage of forensic material is dispersed across 43 police forces and multiple providers. Evidence retention is too important to be left fragmented. We urgently need a return to an independent national storage capacity. The Minister, like his colleagues, must surely agree.
Then there is the stunning inequality of arms, so devastatingly laid out in our report. Equality of arms is a fundamental principle of justice, yet legal aid funding falls far short of the real cost of obtaining independent forensic advice. The Minister has heard the inequality between defendants and victims. Criminal cases may involve DNA evidence, digital evidence, pathology, toxicology or crime scene reconstruction. Independent experts must often review vast quantities of material and undertake their own analysis, yet lawyers repeatedly report difficulties obtaining adequate funding for this.
The state has access to police resources, investigators and prosecution experts. Defendants of limited means often struggle to secure equivalent scientific scrutiny. When forensic evidence cannot be properly challenged because funding is unavailable, errors may go undetected. Miscarriages of justice have often involved forensic evidence that was misunderstood, overstated, inadequately tested or insufficiently challenged. The criminal justice system is clearly at its strongest when scientific claims are subjected to rigorous independent examination. This position is unsustainable. What is urgently required is the rebuilding of forensic science. This is essential to the fairness, credibility and integrity of our criminal justice system.
The Minister is a very sentient being. I noted his discomfort as the noble Lord, Lord Mair, laid out his case. I hope he has read the full report and that he has reflected on what we are saying and will act on our recommendations. I trust that his messages while the noble Lord, Lord Mair, spoke, were him seeking permission to agree the report. I noted that the Minister frequently looked at the annunciator, which records progress on the Health Bill. I am afraid that no votes will interrupt this debate. Nothing will save him from having to respond to us. I hope that he will come back shortly with agreement that he has clearance to implement what we have said here. Will he, at the very least, agree to update the Select Committee? Reform may appear costly, but the costs of inaction, measured in miscarriages of justice, public inquiries and compensation payments, will be far greater. I look forward to the Minister’s response.
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Mair, and his committee for their unsparing report. It is a particular pleasure for me to contribute to this debate as someone who for many years made great use of forensic science when I had a proper job as a police officer.
The committee’s central recommendation is the creation of a national institute for forensic science. I understand the case, especially for research, training and rare disciplines, but I have concerns about the potential for overlap and fragmentation. Today, forensic functions are scattered across multiple different bodies, so I welcome the committee’s focus on the fragmented approach to forensics. However, I fear that the proposed solution may not solve the problem entirely.
The Government’s answer in the police reform White Paper is the creation of a national police service hosting a national forensic service. But if these reforms go ahead and the committee’s recommendation is also adopted, we may find ourselves in a situation whereby forensics is split between the national police service, the national institute for forensic science, the College of Policing, the National Crime Agency and the Forensic Science Regulator.
I appreciate that the Government’s intention is for the national police service eventually to absorb the College of Policing and the National Crime Agency, but this will not happen for quite some time, which means that during the transition period we would have an incredibly disjointed and even more fragmented provision of forensic science services. Indeed, the committee itself concedes that the institute’s role will need to be co-ordinated with all the bodies I just mentioned. Is not the real problem, therefore, fragmentation and bureaucratic overlap? Adding yet another body to an already crowded field risks a structure in which accountability is entirely lacking.
The White Paper promised to
“consolidate decision making authority for the delivery of police forensics under the NPS and establish the legal mandate for a national lead to deliver all forensics as a service to policing”.
How does a separate national institute square with that? If the Government want to fix forensic science, should they not be reducing the number of bodies with forensic functions rather than increasing them?
There is tension on independence, too. The committee wants a “sterile corridor” between forensics and policing, as in Scotland. The Government say that the national police service will host the service and that they rely on the regulator in the meantime. One witness in the committee’s inquiry made the case that forensic science is a function of the criminal justice system, not of policing. So, which approach will the Government take—the one recommended by the committee and witnesses, or the one that they have outlined previously?
The Government’s response to the committee’s report was published in April under the previous Prime Minister. Since July, we have had a new Prime Minister whose agenda is greater devolution and the so-called “rewiring of the state”, so the Home Secretary has said that the review of force structures has been delayed so that it can be retested against that agenda. Will the Government’s restructuring still go ahead in the form that the White Paper described? Is forensics still to be consolidated within the new national police service? Do the Prime Minister and the Home Secretary agree? The whole of the Government’s reply to the committee’s report rests on those reforms and, if the policy has been changed, Parliament is entitled to know.
The committee also noted that full consolidation into the national police service will not occur until 2034 and warned that action on forensics cannot wait that long, yet the Government have not promised legislative proposals until the next Session. Will the Minister tell us when and what is being done now?
I have a few further questions. First, the Government accept that the defence expert market is “fragile”, yet they say that any change to rates will be “cost-neutral”. Rates have reportedly not been changed since 2005, so how can a real increase be cost-neutral?
Secondly, the committee heard that no one seems able to ascertain how police forces spend their forensic budgets, so can the Minister tell the Committee how much is spent and by whom?
Thirdly, the Government concede that the £115 million funding for AI is not specific to forensics, so how much is in fact earmarked for forensic reform?
We support the committee’s call for urgency on forensic science, but we cannot support a model with more bodies and less accountability. As always, I look forward to the Minister’s response.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Hanson of Flint) (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Mair, for bringing forward this important debate today, for the contribution of the Science and Technology Committee to the detailed report and for the blunt, strong and effective way in which the noble Lord put the committee’s case to the Government today.
As a start, I can tell the noble Lord that I was the Minister in charge of forensic services in 2009-10, when I was Police and Counterterrorism Minister as a Member of Parliament in the Labour Government of 1997 to 2010. With my colleague Alan Campbell, the junior Minister, we undertook an examination of the restructuring required for making the forensic service a modern, effective system, and we determined to keep that service in-house.
I can also tell the noble Lord that, in 2012, when the then Government—it was the coalition Government; I say this for the benefit of the noble Baroness, Lady Northover—restructured the Forensic Science Service and effectively privatised it, my colleague Alan Campbell and I opposed that. When I was not in that shadow position anymore in 2018, and served on the Justice Select Committee in the other place, we produced a report that raised many of the concerns that the noble Lord, Lord Mair, put to this Committee today.
So I say to the noble Lord that, if I winced at some of his punches, it is because I recognised those concerns because I have raised them before. When I say to the noble Lord and his committee that I would not have started from here, I hope he understands that that is because I would not have started from here. But here we are.
The question of high-quality, timely and impartial forensic science is, as the noble Lord and colleagues have said, indispensable to the criminal justice system. It helps police to identify offenders, to eliminate innocent people—the point that my noble friend Lord Stansgate mentioned—to inform charging decisions, to enable the defence to test the evidence and to support courts in delivering justice firmly. The Government take the committee’s report seriously.
I cannot answer for the situation before 4 July 2024, because we were not in government then, and I have outlined to the noble Lord our views at the time. I want to put on record the excellent work undertaken by the forensic community in England and Wales and the dedicated professionals who still work in that area today, but I cannot ignore the long-standing weaknesses that have been highlighted by every Member of this House who has spoken.
The areas of concern have been put into about seven or eight categories, and I will try to address some of them, at least in part. They are around national leadership; independence; the commercial market, which is very fragile, as has been said; evidence retention; AI; the policing White Paper; and the potential for a national centre. If I may, I will start with the Government’s proposals for the policing White Paper, because it is the golden seam that runs through all of this.
When it was produced in January this year, we described a fragmented, inconsistent and inefficient system, and we have set out our intention to enable a new national police service to lead a more stable and consistent model for law enforcement in England and Wales. Ahead of the police reform Bill, we have initiated a number of reforms, including a national reform programme of policing and private sector forensic capabilities. As has been mentioned, central to the reform is the policing White Paper. The new Prime Minister has come in but the general tenets of that White Paper are still in place: a reduced number of forces and a centralised service looking at training, procurement and forensics, as well as many other areas of national security.
It may not help Members who have spoken, but the Bill will be produced at some point in the near future. I cannot talk about the Bill until such time as it is produced, but the direction of travel has been clear from the Government in 2026, and it is clear from the Government now. There are obviously some aspects that we want to look at in relation to the size of the force. We have received the report from the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, on the size of forces; we want to look through it and we will do so. I cannot give comfort on those points today, but there will be governance of forensics in a stronger national service, stronger national leadership and safeguards to independence and impartiality, and the national police service will have clear responsibilities backed by statutory powers. That is the direction. It is not published yet but when it is, as with every piece of legislation, it will go to the House of Commons and it will come to this House. It will go through enormous amounts of scrutiny, and I will have to answer for it to Members of this House in due course.
Let me look at the other points that have been raised. The first question was about national leadership in government. One of the key arguments in the committee’s report, mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Neuberger, and the noble Lord, Davies of Gower, is that responsibility for forensic sciences has been too fragmented. I agree. There is too much variation in how forensic science is organised. There is too much about its assurance and how it is overseen, and strategic change, although extremely difficult, needs to be undertaken. Our aim is to move beyond the diagnosis of the same problems and establish some national structures and capabilities to address them. That includes the appointment of the director of forensic services, working in partnership with the National Police Chiefs’ Council and local bodies to deliver national forensic reforms and programmes. There is an understanding of that, and that leadership will need to be looked at.
The question of independence and impartiality has rightly been raised in terms of the forensic science service. It has to be developed and delivered impartially with scientific rigour. The committee itself has highlighted the Scottish “sterile corridor” model as one way to safeguard impartiality. That has some merits, but it is not the only model and currently the Scottish model does not include digital forensic services. We are looking to make sure that practitioners are free to exercise impartial scientific judgment using validated methods, professional standards and robust quality assurance.
The Government are now working with the police, the Forensic Science Regulator and our colleagues in the Ministry of Justice and the Attorney General’s Office to look at designing robust checks and balances that preserve that independence while ensuring high-quality and fair science. There are real challenges and problems, but they are ones that we wish to examine.
The regulator’s statutory code of practice expressly requires impartiality and provides external scrutiny and enforcement. Independence also depends on organisational safeguards of professional leadership, transparent decision-making and effective challenge. We are detailing now, through design with stakeholders across the criminal justice system, those safeguards that can be built into the new model.
The noble Baronesses, Lady Northover and Lady Neville-Jones, among others, mentioned the commercial forensic market. As I have said, there are real and legitimate concerns about the resilience of the commercial forensic market. I would not have started from here, but here is where we are and we recognise that challenge. Work is under way at the moment: the Home Office director of forensic services has prioritised a delivery project as part of the reform programme to look at engaging with suppliers and working with the police to address those immediate vulnerable specialist services while developing a more sustainable market for the future. I would argue—again, we can refer to this in due course—that national governance will provide a clear review of market resilience and improve our understanding of demand for specialist and low-volume disciplines. I accept that that it is work in progress, but I hope the Committee can reflect on the fact that we are trying to address this particular challenge.
The question of research, innovation and a national institute was raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Neuberger, among others. The committee has made a strong case for better national co-ordination of research, innovation, specialist skills and training. I agree with that need. I cannot necessarily agree, on behalf of the Government, with the solution proposed, but I agree with that need. We do not believe that a separate national institute is necessary, but we do intend to strengthen co-ordination through the national police service and a national annual plan developed with partners across the criminal justice system to look at shared priorities, support collective delivery, give special expertise, be proactive for future requirements, co-ordinate funding and commissioning, and form stronger partnerships with academia, universities, industry and others. We want to make sure that the tests do what I think your Lordships’ excellent report does, which is to try to improve the outcomes, with better co-ordination of research and faster adoption of effective science and systems to anticipate future forensic needs.
The question of digital forensics and artificial intelligence was raised by the noble Lords, Lord Ranger of Northwood and Lord Davies of Gower. Digital material is integral to modern investigations. I confess that I love catching up on the Monday night television programmes where the three great transformations of criminal justice—DNA, automatic number plate recognition and forensic science—nail people doing bad things. It is a great pleasure to watch that. I understand, and I know, that we absolutely need to be on top of that game. Synthetic media and deepfakes are creating new challenges, and AI is exponentially sweeping across. That is why we need to look at modernising digital forensics and at new technology. We are looking now at how we can support areas including CCTV analysis and disclosure on translation and transcription. Work is under way across the board to make sure that we modernise what we do in digital forensics accordingly. That is a real challenge, because we can use AI to do this, but AI is equally an enemy that the Government need to be aware of in many areas.
I have been asked the question about financing from the noble Lords, Lord Ranger and Lord Davies. I cannot give an answer today, but I will look at that, dissect the funding and the budgets and come back to the noble Lords in due course.
There was also a question about evidence retention and the forensic archive from my noble friend Lord Stansgate and the noble Baroness, Lady Neuberger. The committee is right to emphasise storage and retention. The director of forensic services has started to work with policing and the forensic archive to strengthen retention and storage arrangements. It may not help the Committee, and I know there will still be challenges back to us, but we now have two police forces working with the Home Office to develop a more consistent and qualitative approach to storing forensic evidence and to look at what we can do to roll out a better, clearer, consistent and auditable approach to long-term management of forensic evidence.
A number of noble Lords mentioned defence experts and equality of arms. That is an important area. The Ministry of Justice has a particularly important role in that. A number of noble Lords mentioned the fact that we need a fair forensic system. If it cannot provide good evidence for the prosecution, the defence must also be able to understand it. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Thomas, has great experience in that area. We recognise those concerns and the need to have extra resilience for the defence expert community.
I am speaking for the Home Office, but the Ministry of Justice and the Legal Aid Agency are now looking at monitoring the availability of defence forensic expertise. Over the summer, they have engaged with defence firms and forensic experts, including on the payment process, which has been raised today. The Legal Aid Agency has published consolidated guidance for experts and, as indicated in the Government’s response to the committee in April, although immediate changes to expert rates will have to be done on a cost-neutral basis, the MoJ is considering the findings of the engagement in the context of the spending review. That goes back to the point that the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Gower, mentioned. Where higher expert rates are justified in individual cases, there are mechanisms to ensure that they can request enhanced rates where possible. An independent cost assessor can determine appeals against the Legal Aid Agency’s refusal of funding.
Finally, we had streamlining forensic reporting. The committee raised concerns about how forensic evidence is communicated and tested in court. I recognise that forensic evidence must be presented in a way that allows prosecutors, the defence and courts to understand its meaning and limitations. The Forensic Capability Network is examining potential improvements at the moment, and the Ministry of Justice is looking at engaging with the defence community as a whole.
I am answering for the department today. One of the criticisms the noble Lord, Lord Mair, made early in his contribution was that a single Minister is not responsible. My colleague Sarah Jones, the Minister for Policing, has responsibility for this. I am answering today for our department, but I will make sure that she and I reflect on the points that have been made today. We cannot revisit the government response, but the areas of concern are ones that we raised when we were not in government. We need to examine how we can do that. In the two years and three months that the Government have been in office—it might seem a lifetime to colleagues—we have been trying to assess and flush out some of those difficulties and challenges. We agree wholeheartedly that the status quo is not sufficient. That is why we have an ambitious national reform programme, why we are tackling the underlying causes and why scientific quality will remain non-negotiable.
While I cannot say yes or no to everything in the report, if I look, as I did today, at the list of the committee’s recommendations, there are a lot of yeses to them. There are quite a few maybes and a few noes, but they are in the minority compared to the yeses and maybes in relation to the list.
The objective for our reform is to have a more effective system at the national level, regulated robustly and focused on timely, high-quality, innovative and impartial advice. I thank the committee. To be honest, I felt that I was against the ropes on this. Every speaker punched hard on areas of concern. It is important that we recognise those areas. We are trying to work through them. I thank the committee for its report. I hope that in the response I have given some comfort on some areas for the noble Lord, Lord Mair, to share with the members present, past and even future.
Lord Mair (CB)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his replies. I am sorry if he felt too much on the ropes, but many of his replies were very much from the heart. We understand the position. What is still a concern is that everything is just delayed until a national forensic service is set up, and that is being presented as a sort of panacea to everything. Our remaining and key question is therefore: how long? What is the timeline for this national forensic service to be set up, what is the timeline for the police reform Bill to be published and will the national forensic service be made independent of the police?
There is also the question of funding for the forensic archive and why that cannot not be done now rather than having to wait for the national forensic service to be established. The Minister mentioned the review by the noble Lord, Lord Hogan-Howe, which is currently determining how many police forces will be optimal, but the question is, again, what is the timeline and direction the of travel, what would a national police service and a national forensic service do and do we really have to wait for the precise number of regional forces to be determined before these actions can be taken?
Our overall concern, which I think the Minister appreciated in his reply, is that we are very anxious to see resolution of these urgent issues that we have identified. As I said in my opening speech, as did many other members of the committee who have taken part in this debate, and I thank them, the forensic science system in England and Wales is not working for anyone. We would therefore appreciate it very much if the Minister could write to the committee on any issues left unanswered in today’s debate. I commend this report to the Committee.
Surviving Drought (Environment and Climate Change Committee Report)
(1 day, 6 hours ago)
Grand CommitteeRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Sheehan
That the Grand Committee takes note of the Report from the Environment and Climate Change Committee Surviving drought: reclaim the rain (3rd Report, HL Paper 298, Session 2024–26).
Baroness Sheehan (LD)
My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who are taking part in today’s important debate on the Environment and Climate Change Committee’s report, Surviving Drought: Reclaim the Rain. I thank Members of the committee for their sterling work on this very timely report. We were fortunate to have the perspectives of the hereditary Peers the Earl of Leicester and Lord Mancroft, both of whom brought valuable understanding of the impact of drought on farming and the wider countryside. As they are no longer Members of this House and cannot take part in this debate, I place on record my appreciation of the insight they brought to the final report.
I also thank the six schools which took part in our youth engagement programme: Boston Grammar School, Bullers Wood School for Boys, Chesham Grammar School, Darlington College, Northfield School & Sports College, and Stamford College in Lincolnshire. Their energy, enthusiasm and knowledge were impressive and their presentations helped to remind us that this is a national issue that young people will inherit. Indeed, the title of our report was inspired by a booklet produced by students at Stamford College: England’s Water Wake-up: Reclaim the Rain.
While I am thanking people, it would be remiss of me in the extreme if I omitted to thank Alastair Taylor, the committee clerk, and his team, who provide expert support in making people like me appear knowledgeable. They are policy analyst Lily Paulson, committee operations officer Hanna Ghufoor, and media and comms officer Alec Brand. I am always deeply grateful for their support.
The committee began this inquiry in November 2025, having just witnessed the driest spring in 132 years, the hottest summer on record and repeated heatwaves. The summer of 2026 was even hotter and drier. The Met Office has provisionally confirmed that summer 2026 was the warmest on record for the United Kingdom. It also found that such a summer was made around 130 times more likely by human-induced climate change.
Breaking an all-time seasonal temperature record two years in succession is unprecedented in the modern record, which dates from 1884. These are not distant projections: they are the lived experiences of households, farmers, businesses, firefighters and communities across the country. Large parts of the United Kingdom remain in drought, and on 15 October the first ever “severe drought” declarations for parts of south-west and south-east England were issued. The Environment Agency estimates that England needs around 120% of normal rainfall between September and April for every area to recover. That is a tall order.
Our report recognised that we were fortunate that the winter of 2025-26 was one of the wettest on record. But how fortunate do we feel entering the winter of 2026-27? The news gets worse: leading meteorologists have warned that the unusually early disruption of the polar vortex could bring prolonged dry conditions, raising the possibility that our reservoirs and groundwater stores may not refill over winter.
I pay tribute to the Minister, for whom I have considerable regard. While the Government’s response to our report was in many respects positive, in that they accepted in whole or in part the substantial majority of our 17 recommendations, I must point out that acceptance is only the first step. It is the intent to deliver that we must be—and remain—persuaded of. Delivery requires clear ownership, firm timetables, adequate funding and visible progress that Parliament and the public can scrutinise. The Government’s response contains too many commitments to work that is “under way”, “being considered” or “expected later this year”. The Government so far are not convincing in their intentions to deliver the recommendations that they have labelled as accepted. The Government’s response was in July this year. In the light of the dramatically worsening drought situation, I hope to hear greater urgency from the Minister today.
The scale of the challenge is stark. The Environment Agency’s National Framework for Water Resources 2025 warns that in a do-nothing scenario, England’s public water supply could face a deficit of 5 billion litres per day by 2055, driven by climate change, population growth and water-intensive industries. More than 60% of that future shortfall must be met through demand management and leakage reduction while new infrastructure is built, says the report. In regulatory speak, that means we must all use less water. As Minister Hardy said in evidence to the committee,
“The cheapest way to increase water capacity is to reduce demand”.
That is the threat I wish to pursue today: reducing demand by reducing waste, improving efficiency and making better use of the rain we already receive, because these are immediate, urgent actions that will bring the results that we desperately need.
Our report is clear that water security for people and the natural environment requires a whole-of-society effort to waste less water and to use it more efficiently, from Whitehall to water companies, from farmers to businesses, and in every home, school, hospital and community. We heard evidence that the public want to play their part. Friends of the Earth told the committee that 68% of people are willing to reduce their water consumption to protect the environment, yet a recurring theme of our inquiry was the lack of public awareness of how much water people use, where it comes from and how scarce it can easily become.
There remains a persistent belief that we are a wet country surrounded by rain, but rainfall is not the same as reliable water supply. Rain that falls heavily and quickly can run off land, overwhelm drains and cause flooding while reservoirs and groundwater remain depleted. England can experience flooding and drought at the same time. We must get better at capturing and storing rain rather than letting it run out to sea. There is a strong argument to invest in measures such as soil moisture monitors and rain gauges—easy things, easy tools—that could help improve soils and our management of soils so that they are able to hold moisture better, something that was recommended in the report. The Government’s response was vague, yet they labelled this recommendation accepted. It would be helpful if the Minister could give clarity about the intention to use tools such as those to give us the data that we need.
The Government also accepted the recommendation to conduct a full economic and environmental assessment for each of their drought scenarios, citing their possible delivery of a drought data hub and early warning system. Can the Minister say whether the lackadaisical commitments—because that is what they were—to soil moisture monitors and rain gauges augers well for a drought data hub? Can he confirm the status of the drought data hub? Is it a possibility? Is it a probability? Does it exist? Will it exist?
The Government have accepted our recommendation calling for a whole-of-society approach to water resilience by promoting a year-round communication plan by December 2026, working with stakeholders across the water system. Indeed, as mentioned earlier, their national framework for water resources prioritises water demand reduction. The Government in their response point to the water efficiency campaign launched this summer by Ofwat and water companies across England and Wales, which aims to reshape the public’s relationship with water and embed water-saving behaviours in daily routines. I welcome that initiative but I must confess that I did not see any of the ads. They did not reach me.
I must ask the Minister how its effectiveness has been measured. How are the Government able to point to that as success, when the Environment Agency’s figures say that total leakage rates show no improvement and remain at 19%, and that household water use has gone up from 136.5 to 136.9 litres per person per day? Households can help to identify leaks, choose efficient appliances, take shorter showers, run full loads, turn off taps and use rainwater. We heard this repeatedly in our evidence. There is also a particular issue with leaking toilets; a continuously running or quietly leaking toilet can waste a huge volume of treated drinking water, often unnoticed behind a closed door. Individual actions matter, but they must be enabled by the Government. The mandatory water-efficiency label, which we are told is currently under consultation, should help consumers to compare products and choose those that use less water. Can the Minister update us on that consultation?
Enhanced water-efficiency standards in building regulations should ensure that new homes are designed for a water-scarce future and do not lock in wasteful consumption for decades. The report’s recommendation 5 calls for urgently strengthening Part G of the Building Regulations 2010, so that new homes use no more than 105 litres of water per person per day. The Government told us that the outcome of the consultation on the regulations is expected in 2026. We are nearly at the end of 2026, so can the Minister tell us what is happening there?
New developments should incorporate water efficiency from the outset: efficient showers, taps and toilet appliances, and well-designed plumbing, metering and leak detection. Where appropriate, homes should include rainwater harvesting and grey water reuse for watering gardens, flushing toilets, vehicle washing and other non-potable uses. These measures, multiplied across millions of households, will make a substantial difference.
I have spent a great deal of my available time speaking of actions that must happen now to prepare the country for possible emergency drought situations, given the drought events this summer and the distinct risk of failed winter rains. The Government must get the urgency of the message across; there is no reason why they cannot undertake to do so straight away.
The public are being asked to play their part. The water industry must now visibly and consistently demonstrate that it is playing its part too. Looking down the speaker list, I have confidence that the shortcomings of the water companies will be exposed again, and that the anomalies of water pricing for industry, the required reform of abstraction licences, measures to facilitate the building of on-farm reservoirs, nature-based solutions and many other issues pertinent to delivering water resilience will receive good coverage.
In conclusion, the Government have accepted many of our recommendations and now they must deliver them. I call on the Government to give a commitment that they will publish clear milestones, identify responsible organisations, report publicly on progress and ensure that households, businesses, farmers, firefighters and the natural environment are equipped with the resources, information, incentives and protection that they need. With large parts of England still in drought, severe temperatures persisting in the south-west and south-east, and a daily projected shortfall of 5 billion litres, this is not a challenge that the country can afford to meet unprepared. The taps must not be allowed to run dry. I beg to move.
Lord Sikka (Lab)
My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Sheehan, and I thank the committee for its report. Contemporary science shows that human consumption is accelerating global warming, which increases the variability of rainfall. There could be more in some periods and places and less in others, so we are faced with a greater prospect of droughts and flooding. Droughts increase the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, which decreases land productivity and reduces the amount of vegetation storing carbon dioxide. Dry conditions produce wildfires and soil erosion, which in turn releases carbon dioxide sequestered in trees and plants back into the atmosphere. In short, droughts threaten crops, water supply, housing, energy production, transport, livestock, biodiversity and our own existence.
Climate change has no boundaries. We need global and local co-operation. Countries with technologies for mitigating global warming need to freely share them with others, but successive Governments have reduced aid to poorer countries, which are then forced to return to the use of fossil fuels. On water usage, the UK ought to learn from Israel, China, India, the Middle East and African countries about how they have greened deserts through efficient water usage and storage, and created more resilient crops. Millions of new trees ought to be planted to reduce the effect of droughts.
The committee’s support for limiting water usage to 105 litres per person per day is intriguing. I do not know what person it had in mind. The super-rich enjoy golf courses, water sports and heated swimming pools. They roam the world in private planes and yachts and use carbon-emitting appliances. The same super-rich have economic interests in promoting fossil fuels and polluting technologies. They use their financial and political muscle to organise threatening issues off the political agenda. We cannot deal effectively with climate change and droughts without shackling the power of the super-rich.
The UK’s richest 0.1% produced 46 times more carbon pollution per person than someone in the poorest half of the population. Oxfam reported that, in 2025, there were 66,931 private jet flights from the UK, producing around 424,000 tonnes of CO2. The flights spent more than 155,000 hours in the air—equivalent to more than 17 and a half years of continuous flying—and covered around 85 million kilometres, equivalent to more than 2,100 trips around the globe. The “polluter pays” principle is rarely applied to the wealthy. If anything, fuel for private airplanes enjoys exemptions from fuel duty and VAT. I hope that the Minister will explain what curbs the Government would place on the wealthy to curb pollution, and explain how they would ensure that they bear the social costs of their polluting activities.
The Government’s commitment to economic growth is at odds with the threat of drought. Indeed, local droughts are being manufactured. There is a huge increase in housebuilding, but it is not accompanied by the required level of infrastructure. England’s water companies are focused on profits, and little attention is paid to the need for national infrastructure. We do not have a national grid to transfer water from areas of abundance to areas of scarcity. The familiar neoliberal reply is that it will cost too much. Of course, they take no account of the social cost of droughts.
Water companies have not risen to the challenge of water scarcity. Successive Governments have permitted them to pay dividends and neglect investment in new reservoirs and desalination plants. Large parts of the UK water network were installed 130 to 150 years ago. Thames Water infrastructure has an average age of 79 years, compared with the industry average of 56 years, and 40% of Thames Water assets are over 100 years old. Some companies still do not have a full map of their pipe network. Some 2.6 billion to 3 billion litres of water in England are lost every day to leaks. Hosepipe bans save around 577 million litres of water a day. Since privatisation, around 44 trillion litres of water have been lost through leaks, equivalent to eight to nine years of household water supply.
At the current rate of investment, it will take 700 years to replace the 425,000 kilometres of main water supply pipes. Existing reservoirs also need to be modified. They are too shallow for hot weather, and a large volume of water is lost to evaporation. Meanwhile, the Government are hobbled by self-imposed fiscal rules which constrain their ability to bring water into public ownership and invest in infrastructure. With the threat of drought, we cannot have business as usual; we need radical change.
Lord Ashcombe (Con)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to serve on the Environment and Climate Change Committee and to speak in this debate. I too thank the staff who supported this inquiry and whose expertise contributed so much to the report.
We are a country that has long taken water for granted. Turn on the tap and the water appears, yet ensuring that it continues to do so is becoming an increasingly significant challenge. When we began this inquiry in November 2025, following a prolonged dry summer, few expected the following year to be even more severe. England avoided a serious water shortage only because the drought was followed by an exceptionally wet winter. Quite frankly, we got away with it. But relying on good fortune is not a water strategy. Given the current state of our water infrastructure, we must hope for another even wetter winter, because our resilience is not yet where it needs to be.
Our report concludes that England could face a shortage of 5 billion litres a day by 2050 if action is not taken. Yet there is reason for optimism. England receives around 10% more rainfall than it did in 1970. The challenge is one not simply of supply but of storage and management. We are experiencing wetter winters and drier summers. The committee found that we must improve the way that we measure, capture, store, supply and use water. Better data and infrastructure and a more strategic approach are all essential.
I welcome the Government’s positive response to most of our recommendations, including commitments on drought monitoring, water efficiency, smart metering and infrastructure investment. However, acceptance is not implementation. Leaks still account for around 19% of water leaving the system—almost 3 billion litres every day. In the oil industry, any leakage is regarded as unacceptable. It has smart pigs to regularly check pipeline integrity, so why not do that in the water industry? Can the Minister say more about the timetable for delivery? The key question is not whether the recommendations have been accepted but when they will be achieved.
In the time available, I shall focus on three issues: storage, demand and governance, starting with storage. England’s population has grown by around 7.5%, or possibly a bit more, over the last decade, yet no major new reservoir has come into operation. At the same time, climate change and economic growth are increasing demand. Major reservoirs currently under development will help, but they remain years from completion. We must therefore think about storage at every scale. That means restoring wetlands and reconnecting flood plains. It means supporting farmers who wish to build on-farm reservoirs that can be shared among them. In the last five years, just 34 reservoirs with a capacity greater than 25,000 cubic metres have been constructed, while the Country Land and Business Association estimates that around 450 will be needed annually until 2050. I am sure that my noble friends Lord Leicester and Lord Mancroft would have had a great deal more to say on this topic if they were still with us.
It also means expanding sustainable drainage schemes and encouraging rainwater harvesting in homes, schools and businesses. Every year, water that causes flooding in one part of the country is, only months later, during drought, unavailable elsewhere—indeed, sometimes in the same places. We must become far better at capturing and storing it.
Secondly, on demand, future water security cannot rest solely with the Government and water companies. We need a cultural shift in how we regard water. We now understand the importance of conserving energy; water should be viewed in the same way as a valuable resource that should not be wasted—mend that leaking loo, fix the dripping tap and use water wisely. Government can help through higher efficiency standards in new homes and buildings. Businesses can reduce consumption. Above all, however, tackling leakage must remain the priority.
Public engagement will be crucial. I regret to say that the Government’s “Let’s Save Water” campaign, in May this year, passed me by and I suspect that I am not alone. Lasting change will depend upon people understanding why it matters. Water companies inevitably also have a major role to play. It is difficult to persuade customers to save water when they see leaks left unrepaired for weeks. Public confidence matters if behavioural change is to succeed.
Finally, I turn to governance. There are many organisations involved in managing our water system. Each no doubt has an important role, but responsibility can appear fragmented. Who is responsible? The committee recommended clearer planning frameworks, better co-ordination between agencies and improved drought monitoring, data sharing and early-warning systems. I welcome the Government’s commitment in these areas, but I regret that water companies are not being given a stronger voice in planning decisions. They are, after all, responsible for ensuring adequate supply. Water availability must become a central consideration in planning, just as electricity connections increasingly are today. One need look only at the growth of data centres to appreciate the challenge; these facilities place substantial demands on local water and energy resources, often on a scale unmatched by other users.
Drought preparedness is fundamental to economic growth, food production, public health, biodiversity and national resilience. The Government deserve credit for responding constructively to our report. The challenge now is delivery. Future generations will not judge us by the number of recommendations we have accepted; they will judge us on whether rivers continue to flow, nature recovers, farms remain productive and households enjoy a secure supply of water. The title of this report captures the challenge perfectly: to survive the drought, we must first learn to reclaim the rain. I hope that the Government will continue to show the urgency and leadership that this challenge demands. I commend this report to the Committee.
Lord Krebs (CB)
My Lords, I thank our excellent chair, the noble Baroness, Lady Sheehan, for her comprehensive introduction to our report, and at the same time thank the outstanding clerk, policy analyst and committee operations officer who support all our work. This report appeared shortly before the driest July since records began in 1836. It was the right product at the right time.
You can build drought resilience by increasing the supply of water, reducing demand or both. The supply of water is ultimately rainfall, which can be stored or transferred from one place to another. The demands on water include use by households, industry, agriculture and nature, as well as the water that is wasted and ultimately ends up in the sea. As we have already heard, the supply—rainfall—has increased slightly over the past few decades, but it also appears to be getting lumpier, with periods of dry weather and periods of intense rainfall. Demand has increased because of population growth and the emergence of new water-intensive industries, such as data centres, as the noble Lord, Lord Ashcombe, just mentioned.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Sheehan, told us, the Minister, Emma Hardy, said that the most cost-effective measures to mitigate against drought are to reduce demand. I want to focus briefly on two areas of demand: the home and the farm. As we have already heard, household water use in England is profligate. We use over 136 litres per person per day, which is 30% more than in many other European countries. The Government have a target of reducing per-capita consumption to 122 litres by 2038, but even this is more lavish than in many other countries in Europe. The reasons for this are quite simple. On the one hand, water is too cheap. On the other, we have not legislated to require more efficient use of water in the home.
Several witnesses told us that water is too cheap, although simply increasing the price of water without reducing the amount used would have a negative effect on the cost of living crisis. However, we were told that some water companies use carrots rather than sticks to encourage more frugal water use. Anglian Water has a summer tariff and a reduced winter tariff to incentivise water saving in dry periods. South West Water offers credit on water bills to customers who reduce their water use. Does the Minister agree that these approaches should be more widely adopted by water companies?
We have already heard that Part G of the building regulations sets the rules for water use in new-build homes. The current standard of 125 litres per person is too high, and the Government accepted our recommendation that the standard should be tightened to 105 litres. They said that the policies for achieving this are expected to be published this year. As the noble Baroness, Lady Sheehan, has already asked, I reiterate that it would be nice to have an update on these policies. I particularly ask whether the policies will include rainwater harvesting and grey water recycling, which could reduce per capita consumption to 80 litres per day. The standard does not apply to existing buildings, and I therefore ask the Minister to tell us how the Government propose to address water use efficiency in these homes.
I turn to farmers. They often rely on abstracted water for irrigation. Witnesses told us about a number of problems with abstraction. One is that the cost of abstraction licences does not reflect water scarcity. Another problem that farmers complained about is that the Environment Agency is sometimes obliged to reduce the amount of water available for abstraction in order to meet the needs of nature. At the same time as these problems exist, the demand for water by farmers is very likely to increase in the future because of summer heat and drought.
The Nature Friendly Farming Network argues that a combination of on-farm reservoirs, rainwater harvesting and efficient irrigation are essential parts of the solution to increased drought resilience. In addition, it emphasises the need to foster spongy soils with high organic content that can successfully retain water. It cites figures suggesting that soils with higher organic content retain substantially more water and reduce the need for irrigation. However, a recent review of the scientific literature also suggests that spongier soils may reduce groundwater recharge, so there may be costs as well as benefits to improving the organic content of soils. Can the Minister tell us what the Government’s assessment is of the benefits and costs of spongy soils? I look forward to the Minister’s responses.
The Lord Bishop of Manchester
My Lords, I add my thanks to the noble Baroness, Lady Sheehan, and the committee for this excellent report. Noble Lords may be wondering why on earth a Bishop from the notoriously damp Manchester is worrying about drought, but I am. Access to clean water is both an environmental matter and a question of justice. That and environmental care form two of the five marks of mission of the global Anglican Communion, of which the Church of England is one of the founder members. Moreover, as a Christian, I believe that human beings have a unique vocation of stewardship towards the natural world. While it was encouraging to see that most of the report’s recommendations have been accepted, a truly effective response requires faster action, greater corporate oversight and accountability, and targeted measures to support those most at risk.
As pressure on water supplies is projected to increase in the coming decades, the Government’s commitment to fast-track some new reservoirs in England is welcome. Long-term investment will be an essential step for sustaining water security into the future. However, as the noble Lord, Lord Ashcombe, reminded us, many of these projects will take years to deliver. In the meantime, droughts will continue to threaten agricultural production, and those with the least will be hit the hardest. Making water more expensive might reduce consumption, but it may have a disastrous impact on the poorest. Water security is also not simply a matter of reservoirs. My daughter and her young family, living in rural Devon, pump their water directly from the stream that flows through their land. They do not have a second source.
The noble Lord, Lord Krebs, helpfully drew our attention to water use in farming. The Church Commissioners, whose meetings I used to chair—they pay my stipend and costs—recently met with one of their farming tenants in Cambridgeshire. The tenant explained that their yields of beans and spring barley were 50% down as a result of dry weather and limited water availability. They also suffered from significant wind erosion, including soil being blown from fields and damaging the crops. In 2026, this kind of extreme weather contributed to England’s worst cereals and oilseed harvest on record, which again drives up prices for ordinary consumers.
To address this crisis with adequate urgency, the Government must also invest in natural infrastructure such as wetlands, so that water can be stored more immediately. I am planning to attend a meeting tomorrow afternoon that will look at making wetland water storage an investable product, which will help farmers to make more land available. Removing barriers to the building of farm reservoirs would reduce pressure on rivers, help manage flood risk and create more wildlife habitats. There is one just below where I live. Crucially, that would enable our farmers to adapt high-value cropping to climate change to bring down food prices and tackle food poverty.
Unless these measures are implemented, the poorest families will face severe hardship. They are the ones for whom stockpiling advice—we have heard a lot on that recently from the Government—is particularly unrealistic. They must be supported through a strengthened social security net and have targeted incentives, so that they can meet their most basic needs.
While the Government’s agreement on a full environmental assessment of the impact of drought is encouraging, their efforts will only be hindered without proper oversight of where demand is growing. We have heard quite a bit about demand; the noble Lord, Lord Ashcombe, already alluded to data centres, yet these are increasingly being built in areas that have existing water stress. One estimate indicates that, overall, AI-related infrastructure could soon consume six times more water than Denmark does. The true scale of water demand may be even greater than currently available statistics suggest.
I know that the noble Lord, Lord Katz, recently told us that data centres currently account for roughly 0.2% of England’s non-household water use. But that statistic relies on voluntary and anonymous surveys; in fact, data centres are currently under no formal obligation whatever to report on the volume of water they are using, where they are sourcing it from or how it is being consumed. If the Government are to effectively fulfil their commitment to improve accurate data collection and the assessment of drought impacts, formalised reporting obligations must be introduced for data centres. That is essential not only so we can understand their impacts on water conservation targets but so that communities are not asked to bear the consequences without real transparency.
The Government have also agreed to improve public engagement and communication on water use and drought preparedness. That is an essential measure for reforming our relationship with the natural world. I and other Christians believe that humans have a unique responsibility to care for creation. We are called to imitate God in exhibiting qualities of care, service and responsibility for all other living beings, and to be shepherds for the natural environment. Bishops carry a shepherd’s crook, of course.
So, while I am encouraged by this commitment, we must understand that public trust in key institutions with environmental responsibilities is alarmingly low. According to the BBC, Thames Water pumped at least 72 billion litres of sewage into the River Thames between 2020 and late 2023, while water bills were continuing to rise. If the public are to be reassured that their actions at home can make a real difference—why they should save water—they must see water companies being properly held to account for environmental abuses, not just leaks but sewage into the waterways.
They must be held responsible for investment in infrastructure and river restoration. There should be meaningful consequences when environmental abuses are discovered. It is no answer that all the value was extracted by the people who bought the companies originally and they have now been loaded with debt. Water insecurity is not a challenge for future generations. Its impacts are already being felt, and disproportionately so, as I have said, by those already experiencing poverty—I make no apology for repeating that.
In order to meet the challenge, we need to invest in natural infrastructure, greater transparency and accountability from private companies entrusted with our water system. Churches and food banks have long supported communities facing hardship. We have emergency support and community initiatives. As food scarcity continues to drive up prices, we will not be able to address these inequalities alone. If individuals are to be expected to prepare for climate-related disruption, the Government must fulfil their responsibilities to their most vulnerable citizens. There must be targeted support for those most at risk, and social security must ensure that basic needs are always met.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
My Lords, I congratulate the noble Baroness, Lady Sheehan, and the committee. This is an excellent report. It is very irritating to me to have to follow the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester because he has covered issues I wanted to cover. That is the problem with coming sixth in a debate in a room full of people who know and understand climate change.
The report has made one thing abundantly clear, which is that drought is no longer a rare or occasional problem. It is becoming a defining challenge for England’s environmental and economic future. This summer cost farmers an estimated £390 million with cereal harvests set to be the lowest ever recorded. It is clear that this crisis goes far beyond simple hosepipe bans to potentially developing into a severe risk to our food supply. What we grow has to change, and the Government have to help farmers to make that transition and do it quickly.
One of the most striking conclusions of the report is that we are not facing a simple shortage of rainfall. In fact, the UK receives more rain than it did several decades ago. The problem is that climate change is altering when and how that rain falls. We are seeing wetter winters, more intense downpours and hotter and drier summers. Too much water arrives when we do not need it and too little arrives when we do. Hotter temperatures mean greater evaporation, lower river levels and more pressure on agriculture, ecosystems and public water supplies. If we fail to address climate change, the challenge of drought will become increasingly severe. For Greens, this is a crucial point because nature is not simply something that is nice to have, to look at and to walk our dogs in. It is part of the solution that we need for this problem. We do not need wildlife and ecosystems damaged because we are failing to address the problem. Healthy wetlands, restored floodplains, thriving peatlands and better managed catchments to help retain water in the landscape are needed. They increase resilience during dry periods while reducing flood risks during wetter months. Clearly farm reservoirs have a role to play in that.
It is not enough to tell consumers, that is, households, that they have to cut their water consumption because clearly people do a lot. I already flush my loo with washing up water and things like that. What has made it really bad is the privatisation of the water industry. First, there was the failure to build any new reservoirs despite English water companies going £72 billion into debt. That money went to shareholders, not infrastructure. Secondly, there is the failure to fix broken pipes. The hose-pipe bans this summer saved a bit of water and ruined a lot of gardens, but leaks lost five times more water. Thirdly, there is the massive expansion of housing and consumption without regulations to limit water use and encourage reuse in new and old buildings.
Reservoirs are needed, but the public do not necessarily trust the water companies to build them. I have been involved with local councillors and campaigners in Havant because the new Havant Thicket reservoir is coming online. At the moment, it is a beautiful watery space, absolutely gorgeous, but South West Water is planning to put recycled effluent into it. That will be a problem. Local people are already asking whether they want to drink that water, whether it is going to be healthy and whether is it going to be okay. South West Water does not have a good reputation. It is dumping sewage and all sorts of chemicals into local rivers and on to the seashore. I have mentioned the Havant Thicket reservoir before; it is a problem. A water industry driven by profit and debt cannot adapt quickly enough to the new climate and new needs. Only public ownership can get us through the coming crisis.
The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester also mentioned data centres. A detailed set of amendments has been drawn up by experts at Manchester University who were raising concerns about data centres. They wanted water reuse and some restrictions on where you put the data centres so it did not impact on areas already subject to drought conditions. They were sensible ideas but the Government ignored them.
We are on track to be living the hottest year on record, and the frightening thing is knowing that the new record could be broken next year or the year after. Climate scientists working via the UN have been making predictions for decades, and every single one of those predictions has underestimated how bad things are going to be and how fast things are going to change.
I have come to all the things that I have scribbled out because other people have said them, but I will try again. Water availability must become a far more important factor in planning decisions. It makes little sense to recognise the risk of future shortages while continuing to approve developments that place ever greater pressure on limited resources. On the Government’s insatiable obsession with data centre expansion, I point out that it will only place further demand in areas where demand is already rapidly increasing due to housing developments.
The solutions are available. We can reduce leakage and use water more efficiently. We can restore natural systems that help store and manage water. We can ensure that development takes place within environmental limits and, above all, we can recognise that tackling climate change is fundamental to securing our future water supplies and our future well-being as a human population.
The noble Baroness, Lady Sheehan, came up with all sorts of really good ideas. I did not make a note but I will check in Hansard—I am sure they are already Green Party policy. However, the biggest thing we can do to fight climate change, or to slow it down at least, is to stop using fossil fuels. I ask the Government, when they talk about growth, to please focus on climate-friendly growth. It is not enough and it is not good enough to talk about constantly expanding all sorts of development when we need to put the climate first. It is not just the climate; it is the future of us, our children and our grandchildren.
Lord Trees (CB)
My Lords, it is a great pleasure to serve on this committee under the excellent chairmanship of the noble Baroness, Lady Sheehan, and the wonderful support of all the staff that we have.
At the end of October, the major part of England was officially in drought or severe drought, and much of England had severe drought in 2025, but the paradox is that the UK currently experiences 10% more rainfall than it did in 1970. Our failure has been not to adequately value our water and not to ensure appropriate capture for storage and usage. One serious consequence has been that the Government have now had to commit to fast-tracking nine new reservoirs by 2050, which will be a serious challenge.
In the time I have I want to focus on two issues: namely, the provision of adequate water for farming and food production, and consideration of how we might reduce domestic usage of potable water. I have not connived with the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, who chose to highlight similar things.
A recommendation in our committee report was for the need to prioritise water supplies in the event of drought, and I suggest that the production of food should be a national priority to support food security. Can the Minister assure us that His Majesty’s Government have determined or are determining priorities for water usage in the event of shortages, and that agriculture is one of those priorities?
I acknowledge that there are difficulties in formulating an overall drought planning policy for farming because of the diversity and highly disaggregated nature of the industry. However, I note that Defra is considering where responsibility for this might lie, so can the Minister indicate whether any progress has been made in this respect?
Not only is water essential on our land for food production, but a multiplicity of on-farm water storage sites would assist in the control of the increasing incidence of wildfires and the consequential huge damage they do to nature habitats and biodiversity. Improving the link and extending the licence terms for water abstraction would facilitate the topping up of existing farm reservoirs during high winter precipitation and de-risk the investment for new on-farm reservoir building.
Although many farmers have managed to create small reservoirs, they are inhibited by planning and other regulatory complexities as well as capital costs. Water management grant funding has been extremely welcome to aid the construction of small reservoirs, but will His Majesty’s Government consider another round of such grant funding, and will they plan to simplify and accelerate the planning and regulatory processes around building more on-farm reservoirs?
My other major point is on the domestic use of water. Over 90% of the total consumption of water is through the public water supply, of which the major part, 59%, is for household use. So, to reduce overall water usage, it makes sense to tackle this major source of use. Currently, we expend much effort and money on collecting and purifying water to drinking standards, and we then use it to flush the lavatory, wash clothes, water the garden and wash the car, and for a variety of other uses. This may consume 45% to 50% of the total household potable water demand.
Current per capita consumption, as we have heard, is over 130 litres per person per day. But Part G of the building regulations requires a dwelling not to use more than 125 litres per person per day, a regulation of which I—like most people, I am sure—was totally unaware. His Majesty’s Government consulted on these regulations in September 2025, as several noble Lords have mentioned, and are still considering a response. When are the results of this consultation due to be published?
The consultation also called for evidence on water reuse in new developments. It has been estimated that harvested rainwater could reduce potable water consumption from current levels to perhaps 80 litres per person per day. We heard evidence from the Good Homes Alliance that distinguishing between potable water consumption and total use in water consumption would be and should be a policy priority to aid in promoting a separation of these resources. It took years before we saw solar panels routinely integrated into the roofs of new buildings. With regard to water, while retrofitting existing buildings with means to separate the source and use of rainfall and grey water from potable supplies is likely to be extremely expensive, what are we doing to develop, encourage and incentivise this installation in new builds? This is not an immediate solution, but in the medium term it could be a game-changer in water conservation. Are the Government considering this approach?
Similar opportunities apply to non-domestic uses, where the use of potable public supply is relatively cheap, providing no incentive for industry to use non-potable sources. Discounted rates have even been provided for higher water users. At a time when there can be water shortages, this is an obvious own goal. Has this practice been discontinued? I know that we in this country are terribly slow at capital innovations, but after all, the Romans were harvesting rainwater in the home 2,000 years ago.
Lord Frost (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I chose to speak today partly because I very much enjoyed my time on the Environment and Climate Change Committee, under the chairmanship of the noble Baroness, Lady Sheehan, but also because I want to set out some reservations, not about the global climate but about the intellectual climate that has shaped this report, which is interesting in many ways. That intellectual climate has crept up on us; it is a reluctance to accept that providing more of the good things of life is a necessary and desirable aim of public policy. This aim has given way to a rather miserabilist vision, in which the task is to restrict consumption, manage expectations and persuade people to be content with that. That was symbolised for me by the Minister’s remark in the evidence session that the cheapest way to increase water capacity is to reduce demand.
The noble Lord, Lord Trees, mentioned the need in this country to be self-sufficient in food or to get closer to it. By that logic, the best way to achieve that would be simply to tell people to eat less rather than to grow more. I do not think that this is a satisfactory prospectus for prosperity, and it is frustrating, because there is a lot in the report on which we could build a better approach.
The summary acknowledges the key facts: we are not short of rain; in fact, we have 10% more than we used to, even if it falls at different times of the year. This could have been the basis for a clarion call to build more infrastructure and to get on with it but, unfortunately, we do not quite get that. It is not that it is not mentioned, and it is acknowledged in the Government’s response, but that it feels half-hearted. Much more is said about the need to exercise restraint, reduce demand and manage human behaviour.
With that in mind, I will briefly mention four issues. First, the report slips into overly alarmist language at times. In the summary, it says that
“drought impacts will, without mitigation, endanger life as we know it today”.
I ask whether that is really consistent with having 10% more rainfall in the country. The problem with the alarmist language is that it makes a particular set of choices about consumption, investment and regulation seem like they follow naturally from an existential challenge rather than being what they really are: highly contested.
Secondly, we are asked to accept a faintly Soviet-sounding permanent campaign for good behaviour—a whole-society approach to drought, sustained all year long, and a government communication plan to that end. The Government’s response tells us that:
“We all must go further and faster to … be mindful of our water consumption”.
We are even told that some stakeholders think temporary use bans are not about reducing consumption but
“an effective awareness mechanism for educating the population”
about changing their behaviour. The feeling, sometimes, is that citizens are seen as kind of conscripts in a permanent national struggle against drought, not customers entitled to expect reliable provision.
Thirdly, I think the deepest problem is a suspicion of abundance as a policy goal. In paragraph 138, the National Preparedness Commission is quoted as saying:
“Allowing the myth to perpetuate that water will always be in plentiful supply, is in some way a citizen’s or business’s ‘right’”.
It regards that as a myth. Of course, no system can guarantee unlimited water in every circumstance, but plentiful, reliable supply ought at least to be an ambition to realise, not an expectation that has to be educated out of the public. People might be entitled to ask why the answer to growing demand should so readily become a campaign to suppress demand instead. For that is what is intended; paragraph 86 quotes figures and a planned balance in which 50% of the projected supply deficit is met by “customer-side demand management”. In other words, reduced consumption becomes the dominant answer, rather than asking what it would take to provide enough and whether that is the better way forward.
Demand management starts by being voluntary but ends by being compulsory, which has already been alluded to a little. We see it in the recommendation that the new building regulations for new homes should require a maximum water usage of 105 litres per person a day. The Government have accepted that recommendation, although I guess they did so before the Chancellor said in the Budget that there will be no further major changes to building regulations for the remainder of this Parliament. Can the Minister, in winding up, say whether this is still government policy or whether it has been superseded by events?
My fourth and final point is on affordability. The word does not actually occur in the report, and its discussion of price seems to see it primarily as a tool for managing demand down. It seems to think that water is fundamentally too cheap, in some sense. That is fine—well, not really fine, but understandable if you are well off. What about those who struggle? Do they not deserve some concern in policy-making in this area too? The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester has already alluded to this issue. By all means, introduce more of a market in water, but only if there are also measures to increase supply. I think that we will instead see supply restricted, in practice by state fiat, coupled with demand managed through high prices. That is a regressive policy and one that I think the report could have commented on a little more.
The right objective is more reliable water and more of it at prices that people can afford. To repeat the committee’s own phrase, we need
“better storage, supply and reuse”,
not more public enthusiasm for having less of it. I worry that we are importing into water policy the same mistaken instinct I see in energy policy: treating scarcity as something to organise society around, not a problem to overcome. The public are entitled to expect better than that, and the policy really ought to be a determination to provide it.
Lord Jay of Ewelme (CB)
My Lords, it is always good to follow my good friend the noble Lord, Lord Frost —opposites attract, I think I might say. It has been a pleasure to be a member of the Environment and Climate Change Committee for the last two years and to work with the noble Baroness, Lady Sheehan, as a highly effective chairman, and with our excellent staff.
As our report makes clear, climate change is one of the key factors causing drought. I will just say a word about climate change itself: it is of course an international, not a national, crisis that we face at the moment. Despite the difficulties at present, in particular in Washington and elsewhere, it is essential that the international community takes climate change seriously, not least at COP 31, which is going on as we speak. I must say that I am not sure that flying a thousand people to Turkey is a particularly good example to the rest of us—an online COP might be an option for the future—but, even so, I am glad that the Prime Minister and other Ministers will be there and I hope that, at COP and thereafter, the United Kingdom will lead by example in what it says and does.
Climate change is not of course the only cause of drought in the United Kingdom. Population growth and water-intensive industries, notably data centres, play their part too. Nor is drought an annual occurrence. None the less, drought in summer and flooding in winter looks like becoming, if not the new normal, at least a regular occurrence, hence the relevance of the committee’s report. It is clear from the Government’s response to the report that the Government and the committee are broadly on the same page. That is not always the case, in my experience, on this committee or others.
I therefore welcome the publication of A New Vision for Water earlier this year and the report by Sir Jon Cunliffe that preceded it. As the noble Baroness, Lady Sheehan, said, however, it is execution that matters. I want to focus on two main issues, the first of which is the need to make us all realise that water is a scarce resource. We know when electricity is scarce because the price goes up and we know when gas is scarce because the price goes up. We use less electricity and gas as a result. We all know, I think, that the electricity price is too high and that the Government are rightly trying to get it down. However—I know this is an unpopular thing to say—the price of water is too low by any standard and we use it too liberally.
I know how hard it is to raise prices at a time of economic difficulty for people and for businesses, but does the Minister accept that at a time of scarcity the price of water may need to rise? I know that the price mechanism is not everything, and I applaud the Government’s campaign earlier this year, “Let’s Save Water”, as an attempt to change attitudes in England and Wales. The chief executive of the Environment Agency, Philip Duffy, told the committee this morning that the early signs suggested that the report had had a positive effect. It was an impressive evidence session and the suggestion of a positive impact is good, but can the Minister tell us how the Government intend to maintain the momentum to change attitudes to water and to use less? Like others, I urge the Government and the committee to keep the pressure on the water companies to reduce leaks. Nothing so disincentivises the rest of us to cut back on water use than seeing the street outside our houses running with water from a burst main.
I turn to the need to preserve water, a matter for all of us as individuals. Many of us are using less water and some of us are mastering the technology of rain butts. It is also a question of building regulations, and I am glad that the Government accept our recommendation on this. It is more than that though: too much rain is running into rivers and out to sea. We need more and deeper reservoirs, as mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Sikka. I know the difficulties in winning local support for new reservoirs, but I do not see how we can meet the challenges and crises of the future without building them. The Government have talked of simplifying planning rules and the water companies have talked of compensatory measures for affected communities, but progress is worryingly slow. Can the Minister assure us of the Government’s determination to see new reservoirs built and used soon?
We need large reservoirs but more on-farm reservoirs too, as others have said. I am glad that the Government accepted the committee’s recommendation on this and announced in August this year their intention to encourage local water supply and streamline planning barriers. But does this go far enough? The Country Land and Business Association makes a powerful case for constructing many more reservoirs than would be possible with the £15 million so far allocated by the Government. Like others I am sorry that we no longer have the Earl of Leicester with us to make this point more effectively than I can. Does the Minister agree that we must do much more?
Finally, as mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Sheehan, we had excellent presentations from six schools during our work on this report. One of them gave us the title of our report, reclaim the rain. Their commitment was palpable, and it is their future and not just ours that is at stake.
Baroness McIntosh of Pickering (Con)
My Lords, I am delighted to have joined the committee in January 2026, which was part-way through the inquiry, and it is a privilege to serve on it. I declare my interests: I am co-chair of the All-Party Parliamentary Water Group and vice-president of the Association of Drainage Authorities, and I have minor shareholdings in Pennon and United Utilities. I co-authored four reports, and am now undertaking a fifth, on water and flooding policy in a series entitled Bricks and Water with Rob Allen from Westminster Sustainable Business Forum. I congratulate my noble friend Lady Sheehan for her excellent stewardship of the committee, for chairing it so well, for this excellent inquiry and for securing this debate. I echo the thanks of all on the committee to the support staff who are with us today.
The summer of 2026 saw the worst drought for 50 years. The impact on consumers, farmers and businesses was palpable. In North Yorkshire, we had ongoing wildfires that were very difficult to control. They threatened farms, livestock and livelihoods. I praise the North Yorkshire Fire & Rescue Service and other emergency services for their huge efforts to bring those fires eventually under control. It is essential to have access to water for livestock, poultry producers, the horticultural sector and households.
Climate change is now a fact of life. We have to learn to live with the consequences. We have to do more between droughts and between floods. It is essential that we store more water in times of flooding. We need to have not just the large reservoirs but, as others have said, smaller on-farm reservoirs of around 20,000 cubic litres. We need to have nature-based solutions, and I pay tribute to the Pickering Slowing the Flow pilot scheme project, which, in storing water upstream, has protected the town of Pickering from flooding since its construction.
We must have measures to mitigate and adapt to the impact of droughts and floods. We need to use building regulations intelligently and effectively to make houses more resilient. We need to reduce water consumption per household to 105 litres per person per day. This is not unique to the United Kingdom: Denmark and other Scandinavian countries are already well ahead in this field.
In considering the report, I will refer to certain recommendations and, in particular, the Government’s response to them. First, the committee recommended that water companies be made statutory consultees on all major planning decisions, particularly for houses. Why is this important? In the Pitt review in 2007, Sir Michael Pitt recommended ending the automatic right to connect, so that water companies would not be forced to make false connections or connections that would put undue pressure on wastewater—sewage—in adjacent developments to those for which planning permission was sought. Sadly, the Government have rejected that recommendation, which in my view is ill advised.
Far too often, planning for major housing developments is being sought in inappropriate places—on functional flood plains and in areas of water stress. Also, too often, wastewater in the form of raw sewage is making its way into rivers, watercourses and the sea because these developments are proceeding against the advice of the Environment Agency. The Government have also yet to implement Schedule 3 to the Flood and Water Management Act 2010, allowing excess surface water to continue to enter the combined sewers. This situation will continue until water companies can formally reject inappropriate applications as statutory consultees.
We proposed to strengthen building regulations to reduce potable water demand to a maximum water usage of 105 litres per person per day. Although the department has accepted this, the Government—and the Budget, as we heard earlier from the noble Lord, Lord Frost—have announced that no new building regulations will be adopted any time soon. That is very disappointing indeed.
Internal drainage boards—I have declared my interest—have an essential role to play in the maintenance, drainage and flood prevention of watercourses in low-lying areas. Crucially, the role of IDBs should be recognised in the forthcoming water Bill so that they will have a recognisable role to play in any catchment management system of watercourses. Bizarrely, the department has rejected our recommendations to expand the remit of IDBs.
On storing water, creating reservoirs, the use of abstraction licences, environmental permitting and nature-based solutions, Defra is ambivalent. It accepted our recommendation of moving abstraction licensing into the environmental permitting regime, but we heard from the Environment Agency today that there is simply no timeframe to do so and therefore, it seems to me, no sense of urgency. Given the scale of the problem identified in this report, I would argue that urgent action is needed and we need to do more to prepare for future droughts and times of flooding.
Small on-farm reservoirs should be given priority. The department urgently needs to address the issue of the Balmforth review on reservoir safety and the de minimis rule contained in the Reservoirs Act 1975, recognising that small on-farm reservoirs of between 20,000 and 100,000 cubic metres simply do not threaten public safety—when they are ring-fenced so that no one enters them and drowns—but will manifestly contribute to preparing for and surviving future droughts. I urge the department to act now to implement all our recommendations or give us today a very good reason for not doing so.
The Lord Bishop of Norwich
My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Sheehan, for bringing this debate and for the thorough report by the Environment and Climate Change Committee. As always, it is a privilege to follow the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh. About 15 years ago, when I was chairing the forestry and woodlands advisory committee for the Forestry Commission in the north-east, I visited Pickering to see that excellent work holding the water higher in the catchment area. I think beavers would also do a good job. There are two environmental areas on which I would like to focus: the impact of drought on soil health and chalk streams.
First, I shall offer a few reflections as a Lord spiritual. Drought is a recurring theme throughout history, bringing hardship, uncertainty and a stark reminder of humanity’s dependence on the natural world. My question is: has this been the hottest summer on record or the coolest summer of our futures? Has this been the worst harvest on record or the best harvest of our futures? The Bible offers some striking descriptions of drought and its consequences. The prophet Jeremiah describes the distress of people sent to draw water only to discover that the cisterns were empty. Similarly, in the story of Elijah the brook dries up because there had been no rain in the land. These accounts illustrate how quickly the things we take for granted can disappear and how vulnerable human life becomes when essential resources become scarce.
We should resist viewing drought as simply an act of nature beyond our influence. Climate change, excessive consumption and the pressures we place on natural resources all invite serious consideration of our responsibilities. We are reminded that water is precious, that its availability cannot be taken for granted and that we have a duty to protect and preserve our environment for future generations. I recall a time in the very north of Ghana when there was very little water, and we were given basically a calabash each to wash in every day. It was a salient reminder of how water in so many places around the world is utterly treasured.
Drilling down into the two areas of soil health and chalk streams, we are totally reliant on six inches of soil to sustain human life. Healthy soils store water, support plant growth, provide habitats for countless organisms and play an important role in maintaining the balance of our ecosystems. When soil is rich in organic matter and has a healthy structure, it can absorb and retain moisture, as the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, outlined, helping plants and crops withstand periods of dry weather and, vitally, holding water higher up in its catchment—a sort of natural flood management infrastructure. Conversely, compacted, depleted or degraded soils struggle to hold water, making the effects of drought more severe. As a simple experiment, pour water on to hard, dry soil, and it just runs off; pour it on to healthy soil, and it soaks in. Spongy soils are good, as the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, said.
Drought causes a slowdown of the soil microbe activity that drives nutrient cycling and supports plant growth. Microbial communities’ structure, function and interactions can all be disrupted in periods of drought. Drought also leads to nutrient stagnation. Without moisture, nutrient transport to roots halts and uptake by plants decreases. Drought impacts soil invertebrates—earthworms, woodlice, millipedes and the like—reducing population numbers, and this results in less supply for their predators and a greater challenge for birds to extract them from the soil.
The depletion of soils means that during drought conditions, soils become exposed to wind erosion as well as topsoil erosion when it rains too hard, causing flash floods. When, as we have heard, peaty soils dry out, carbon is released into the atmosphere, and they become susceptible to fire, as we saw with moorland fires last summer. The soil moisture deficit in west Norfolk at the end of September compared with the long-term average reached an all-time high of more than 160 millimetres.
Perhaps the lesson of drought is not simply that we need more rain but that we need to take better care of the ground that receives it. A healthy future begins under our feet. Improving soil health and having spongy soils is the first practical step towards greater drought resilience. Thus, my first question to the Minister is: where does soil health come in His Majesty’s Government’s priorities about responding well to a drier summer future?
My second point is the impact of drought on chalk streams. These precious ecosystems, of which about 85% of all the world’s 200 chalk streams are found in England, well up out of aquifers. Consecutive months of below-average rainfall mean that aquifers fail to recharge during the winter. Drought extends the time when there is no flow in winterbournes—temporary streams in the upper reaches of chalk stream systems that contain water only when groundwater levels rise high enough to feed the channel—thus threatening species that depend on these seasonal patterns.
The River Pang in Berkshire dried up in places never seen before this summer. In fact, poor old Ratty, Mole and Mr Toad would not be able to get into their boat. It is not helped by the level of abstraction to meet water demand. In August, the River Wensum, which flows through the centre of Norwich, experienced a mass death of fish and of species that are not visible—the fish all floated when they died, but many other species were killed as well—after a heavy downpour of rain flushed contaminants out of the city’s drains into the Wensum. Thus, my second question to the Minister is will His Majesty’s Government fulfil their promise in the White Paper to further “embed action” to protect chalk streams, including during periods of drought, in the long-expected clean water Bill?
The Duke of Wellington (CB)
My Lords, I declare my farming interests in the United Kingdom and southern Spain. I mention that because I am more than aware of what farmers suffer when there is a lack of rainfall. In southern Spain, we never expect any rain between May and October—none—so we have what members of the committee would think of as a drought every year. We are very conscious of conserving water, using it efficiently and building small, on-farm reservoirs, as has been mentioned by a number of noble Lords.
I am interested in this report and welcome it. It has been informative for me. I am no longer a member of the Environment and Climate Change Committee, but I wish to comment briefly on an element that is referred to in the report but has not yet been given the priority it deserves, which is leakage. The figures have been quoted by various noble Lords. Some 20% of our daily supply of water is lost through leakage. That is an incredible figure. If I understood the graphs correctly, that is nearly 3 billion litres of water every single day lost through leakage. I find it extraordinary that that does not concern the public and the department more than it does. It is a very serious situation.
The noble Lord, Lord Katz, answered a question from me in the Chamber only two days ago, and I have put questions to the noble Lord, Lord Benyon, when he was the Conservative Minister, and to the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, the present government Minister. The Government’s ambition, their target, is to reduce water leakage by half in the next 24 years. We should be doing better than that. The report helpfully tells us that the government target has been accepted by the Government as what the water companies have committed to do. That is the wrong way to form public policy. The Government should set a target and make the water companies achieve it. We have got that wrong.
I also read with great interest in the report that Ofwat is quite often reluctant to authorise expenditure on leak prevention. That astonishes me. Again, I hope that the public will become more aware of that. As my noble friend Lord Jay said, nobody likes to see the water mains in their street leaking down the side of the road. That is when it is visible, but, unfortunately, a lot of leakage is not visible; it is in old underground pipes that have been there for maybe 100 years. Again, with modern technology, which is referred to in the report, there must be ways of detecting these leaks. Smart meters were mentioned and are obviously sensible. There should be more meters along the system, which would be a way of catching leaks.
I would like the whole question of leakage to be moved up the list of priorities, even more than the committee has said. There are two or three very interesting pages in the committee’s report about leakage, but it is more important than the committee has suggested, if I may say so. Three-quarters of the leaks, I understand, come from the water companies’ pipe systems, and only one-quarter comes from domestic residences and businesses. I hope I read that correctly. So the major problem, which we must tackle, is the leakage from water company systems. The report says that in 2055 we will have a deficit of 5 billion litres a day. As I have just said, we are currently losing 3 billion litres a day, so surely part of that problem can be solved by reducing leakage.
I very much commend the committee on the report and its recommendations. I am disappointed that this Government, like the previous Government, have not been prepared to look again at the target. Although the noble Lord, Lord Katz, said two days ago in the Chamber that he was not minded to ask Ministers in the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs to look again at that target, I again ask him to pass on to his ministerial colleagues that this is something they really should look at. They should not just take as a target what the water companies have suggested.
Earl Russell (LD)
My Lords, I declare my interest as a board member and director of The Water Retail Company. I thank our clerks and committee staff for their exemplary work, the many witnesses and the schools which worked alongside us. I also pay tribute to and thank my noble friend Lady Sheehan for her excellent leadership of the committee.
I welcome the Government’s response; 11 of our 17 recommendations were accepted in full and four in part. That is not something that the committee counts on. It matters—I will not set out all those recommendations because others have done so—and it is a constructive response, but as others have said—here is the central nub of the issue—what matters now is the pace of delivery, which must match the pace of the problem. I think we have said with one voice that acceptance is not implementation and that urgent action is now absolutely required on these matters.
The truth at the heart of the report is simple: our climate is changing faster than our policies can keep up with. As my noble friend Lady Sheehan said, we wrote much of this during last winter’s floods, yet here we are back in drought. Indeed, we need 120% of rainfall every month between now and April just to come out of drought. So floods and drought are two sides of the same coin.
The noble Lord, Lord Ashcombe, pointed out that the Met Office has shown us that we get 10% more rain now than we did in 1970. The difference is how it falls. We have the lumpier rain in the winter that the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, mentioned; that runs off, and then we have this hydrological whiplash that our witnesses talked about when, in the summer, the heat bakes the soil and any rain we get simply does not soak in. Beyond that, our infrastructure is also built for a different climate. The steady rain of my childhood no longer exists. At two degrees of warming, droughts like that in 2010 will become 86% more frequent. At four degrees of warming, they will become 150% more likely. The increasing risk of multiyear events has the real potential to do absolute damage to our water security. I respond politely to the noble Lord, Lord Frost: I recognise his points, but he is asking us to report on a world that does not exist any more.
Our overall conclusions are not complex: we must capture the rain where and when it falls. It is the change required to get there that is complex. It starts, as others have said, with big infrastructure projects. We have not built new reservoirs in way too long. I welcome what the Government are doing on that, but these projects take a long time. The Government need to make progress and they must be honest about who pays.
Water infrastructure is also the very landscape itself—a point made by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester and the noble Baroness, Lady Jones. Our wetlands, peatlands and river restorations slow water flow in the winter and recharge it in the summer. Our dried peatlands also become carbon emitters, with underground fires when they are not kept moist. I absolutely agree with the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Norwich that we need more beavers—nature’s own engineers. We need to reduce licensing costs and put more into funding rangers, so that we can manage their reintroduction. I welcome the £300 million for natural flood management, but it falls short of a first line of defence. I want to see the Government go further.
Our report was absolutely clear about demand: 80% of the reduction in the next decade must come from the demand side. The noble Duke, the Duke of Wellington, is absolutely right to point out that 19% of treated water is lost to leaks; one-fifth of all the water we clean and pump is gone. The noble Lord, Lord Krebs, pointed out that our consumption is still too high and is getting higher. Halving leakage by 2050 is a reaffirmed target but not a new one. I wonder whether the Minister would commit to having milestones on that journey.
Water companies are not delivering on the water efficiency measures. They are not the right vehicle, so I ask the Government to look at them. On Part G, we welcome that but when will the Government respond? Every home that we build to the old standard is one that we retrofit later at greater cost. We need grey water systems, rainwater harvesting—a point that the noble Lord, Lord Krebs, made—and smart meters in half of our properties by 2030, giving us near-instant leak detection. We also need better-designed taps. With one of the taps I have at home, it is almost impossible to control the flow of water. Would the Government consider mandatory labelling for fittings and improving fittings?
I turn to where the response falls short. The Government rejected statutory consultee status for water companies, pointing to the requirement to assist. I wonder whether that will really have an impact and how it will work in practice. We are not asking for a veto, but these pressures and tensions need to be better planned for and understood. The Government also rejected extending the remit for internal drainage boards. Again, that needs better consideration. As the noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh of Pickering, said, the water Bill offers an opportunity to change that. Will the Government take that up? That is my challenge.
On data, we have just 50 soil monitoring sites. I recognise the Government’s response but they must give us the detail. How many will there be, and when will that be done? The Environment Agency projects a deficit of 5 billion litres of water by 2055. Our evidence suggests that it is probably greater than that, and, as others have said, AI data centres and hydrogen production are outside of that and are projected to require another 767 million litres of water by 2050. The AI sector does not report its water use—a point made by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester. The Government need to require mandatory reporting for its water use. There need to be adequate guardrails for reporting and for the water it uses.
I welcome the new flood and drought resilience taskforce. Fifty bodies around the table is really good, but this kind of integrated working is what we really need. Will it have the powers required?
To conclude, as I have gone over time—I apologise, but I am trying to sum up this debate—I want to ask the Minister a final question. We have an El Niño coming. What preparations are the Government making for if the winter rains fail and we have another really hot summer? If that happened, we would be in a really bad situation.
Lord Roborough (Con)
My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Sheehan, for this debate and for her work as chair of the Environment and Climate Change Committee. I also join the noble Baroness, Lady Sheehan, and my noble friend Lord Ashcombe in particularly thanking my noble friends the Earl of Leicester and Lord Mancroft, who sat on this committee but who have since been excluded from this House and so unfortunately are unable to be here today to debate this report. I draw the Committee’s attention to my register of interests as a farmer and land manager, including engagement in peatland restoration, riparian tree planting and the River Walkham landscape recovery scheme.
A 10-year weather survey conducted by the NFU found that 68% of respondents have seen an increase in drought, and this July was the driest on record for England and Wales. There is no denying climate change on our Benches. Many of our reservoirs have hit record lows and even now are 17 percentage points below seasonal norms. As others have already pointed out, we need more than 20% above seasonal rainfalls to leave us even partially prepared for another year like this one.
It is not that we lack rainfall, the expertise or opportunities for private capital. However, a phone alert from the Government banning barbecues over the summer just did not cut it. Genuine resilience and adaptation are needed. So many of these issues have a knock-on effect beyond water supply: on our farmers, food prices, housing development, businesses’ growth and essential infrastructure. It is estimated that broader water scarcity could cost the UK between £8.5 billion and £13 billion in lost growth over the next five years, which, frankly, seems a low estimate.
The report has called for the Government to publish a prioritisation plan for an emergency drought situation no later than this autumn, as well as to foster a whole-of-society approach to drought management by putting in place a year-round engagement plan on water use by December 2026. Can the Minister update your Lordships’ House on this and reassure us that agricultural water needs and usage will not be left as an afterthought? This is especially important when the Government have launched their Be Ready campaign.
In the remainder of my comments, I want to focus on the supply of water and, in particular, on storage. The noble Duke, the Duke of Wellington, and the noble Earl, Lord Russell, addressed leakage comprehensively. The report states:
“Nature-based solutions … in both the urban and rural environment must be prioritized as a first line of defence to manage the increasing risk of both flooding and drought”.
The first new reservoir is not due for five years at the earliest, and the remainder are not expected until as late as 2040. The country needs solutions that deliver now. The Government have announced only £15 million to help build on-farm reservoirs. Can the Minister say whether the water management grant will still be open this autumn, how many on-farm reservoirs it will fund and what impact that will have on our total water storage? My suspicion is that it will be incredibly valuable to the rural economy, but wider society will not benefit. I have visited an irrigated cotton farm in Australia. Land intensity for on-farm reservoirs tends to be high. They tend to be quite shallow and use quite a lot of land. There is also an issue with the release of carbon from the soil underneath them.
Further to that, what is happening to SFIs that fund nature-based water solutions? How can they contribute meaningfully when there is a cap of £100,000 per applicant? Those applicants might value other SFIs more highly. Can the Minister update us on uptake levels for 2026 SFI round 2 related to improved water volume management? I can find only two: management of ponds and ditches. Why are there so few? In August, the Minister said they had been working closely with MHCLG to update planning guidance to support agricultural infrastructure, such as on-farm reservoirs. What further planning reforms are planned?
The adoption of nature-based solutions could move so much more quickly with a proactive, enabling, risk-tolerant Defra and its ALBs. We on these Benches believe that the current complex structure focused on prescribing actions is not fit for purpose, nor is it helpful that much of the infrastructure that needs protection through NBS—nature-based solutions—is transport or energy-related. We know that officials from those departments have shown serious interest in nature-based solutions. Will the Minister ensure that Defra leads this effort and ensures that the resources of all these departments are harnessed to allow those industries to fund nature-based solutions appropriately? Endless consultations, planning cycles and approval requirements seek to gold-plate these schemes when the Government could place so much more trust in a properly incentivised and deregulated private sector to deliver the desired outcomes. The Corry review made many sensible recommendations for how that could be achieved.
We on these Benches urge the Government to go further and faster in simplifying Defra to focus on outcomes, risk tolerance, accountability and, more important than all of that, attracting private capital to nature-based solutions. The science is there to support investment in restoring soil structure, rewetting, decanalising our rivers and streams and riparian planting, but the Environment Agency continues to penalise these measures with a 4x risk multiplier versus grey infrastructure. A portfolio of many of these actions will surely reduce the overall risk of using nature-based solutions to levels at or below grey infrastructure. What can be done to encourage the Environment Agency to take a more constructive tone? The £3 billion targeted at nature-based solutions in the current water sector investment cycle is good, but why are we not open to much more given the speed of delivery and the evident benefits?
Landscape recovery schemes are impressive but they are moving too slowly, hampered by contracts that threaten to withdraw funding with 12 months’ notice and limited by five-year spending reviews when the schemes themselves may last 20 or even 30 years. There are difficulties in quantifying values from these investments in resilience in our national water infrastructure and in ensuring that all beneficiaries contribute fairly. The Evenlode scheme shows what can happen when an effective leadership team brings together the owners of downstream infrastructure with the water companies to deliver a comprehensive investment package. Why is this not happening in every river catchment now?
The Environment Agency requires companies to plan future supply on the assumption that demand targets will be reached, but demand reduction has underperformed expectations, with an estimated shortfall of around 220 million litres per day. Can the Minister shed light on what the water Bill will do to tackle this? Will there be changes to the price review process for water companies? Finally, what progress have the Government made on accepting round 3 landscape recovery schemes? How many round 1 and round 2 schemes have moved into the implementation phase in order to deliver these long-term, large-scale projects for the environmental benefits we all want to see?
As climate change compounds manmade pressure on our natural environment, as well as on our water supply system, the great beauty of nature-based solutions is the dramatic improvement they bring to nature protection, restoration and recovery. Salmonids benefiting from more consistent flows in our rivers increase biodiversity within healthy soils, particularly for many unpronounceable, I am afraid, but highly beneficial fungi, bacteria, insects and ground-nesting wading birds, such as Eurasian curlews from rewetting drained land. I hope I am sufficiently persuasive on this subject. We could be planting riparian trees right now, although the soils are probably still too dry, but right now is the planting window until March. Soils remain dry enough to use swing shovels now to decanalise rivers and restore peat hags. Where is the action?
Several noble Lords mentioned data centres. I should declare an interest that I am an unpaid advisor to a data centre development and a member of the APPG for Data Centres. I am sure that the Minister will make this point too, but all the UK data centres use recycled water. Their water footprint is de minimis. It is the US data centres that use water on a run-through basis for cooling; it does not happen in the UK. The noble Earl, Lord Russell, will, I hope, be reassured by my view that hydrogen will never be economic in this country and, therefore, will never use much water.
I am conscious that I have asked a lot of questions, many of which I asked in the Chamber on Monday and my noble friend Lord Ashcombe asked in the Chamber yesterday. I hope that the Minister’s officials have prepared him very thoroughly. If there is not time to answer them all, a reply in writing will of course be very welcome.
Lord in Waiting/Government Whip (Lord Katz) (Lab)
My Lords, it is an absolute pleasure to respond for the Government to this interesting and in-depth debate on the Environment and Climate Change Committee’s report. I thank all those who have brought their experience of sitting in the committee, but also their life experience, to bear on this debate and the consideration by the committee. I am very grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Sheehan, for securing the debate and to the present members of the committee and indeed past ones; I take a moment to mention the Earl of Leicester and Lord Mancroft in that cohort. The experience demonstrated across the Committee today reflects the importance of the issues that we are discussing and the growing challenge that drought poses to our environment, economies and communities.
I say right now, because I might forget at the end as I will be in a rush, that I am sure I will not be able to answer all the questions, however hard I try, from the noble Lord, Lord Roborough, opposite. I will do my best and will of course reflect on Hansard and reply to Peers on those questions that I miss.
As everyone has noted, this debate comes at a particularly important time. Parts of England are currently experiencing severe drought conditions, reminding us that drought is no longer a distant risk that may arise at some point in the future. It is a challenge that we must confront now, while also strengthening our resilience to the droughts that climate change is expected to bring in the years ahead.
While severe drought is the highest classification in the Environment Agency’s drought framework, it does not in itself mean that public water supplies are at immediate risk. We have to be clear about that. It does, however, underline the need for the Government, regulators and water companies to act early and prepare for the possibility that conditions could worsen. The Government therefore welcome the committee’s report and all the recommendations that it contains. As has been noted, the Government have, with a couple of exceptions, accepted the report. Noble Lords rightly ask, where is the action and follow-up? I hope to be able to address at least some of those concerns in my response.
As we set out in our response earlier this year, the Government agree that action is needed across society to improve drought preparedness, strengthen water resilience and ensure secure supplies of water for people, businesses, agriculture and the natural environment. As many noble Lords have noted, particularly the noble Baroness, Lady Sheehan, the committee’s report was published before the severe drought conditions we are now experiencing in parts of the country. Those conditions only reinforce the importance of the issues raised by the committee and the action that is already under way across government and the water sector.
Before turning to longer-term resilience, I want first to address the current situation. Since severe drought was declared in parts of England, the Government have been working through the National Drought Group to co-ordinate the national response, alongside the Environment Agency, water companies and local partners. The National Drought Group plays a vital role in bringing together organisations responsible for managing water resources, protecting the environment and maintaining essential services. It is that cross-government, multi-agency and whole-society effort that many noble Lords mentioned, particularly the noble Baroness, Lady Sheehan. Through this collaboration, we are ensuring that action is informed by the latest evidence and that appropriate measures are implemented as conditions evolve.
We have increased engagement with water companies in the areas facing the greatest pressure, worked alongside local resilience arrangements where necessary, and have continued to assess the measures available to protect public water supplies and minimise impacts on the environment wherever possible. Water companies are implementing their statutory drought plans, while the Government and regulators continue to monitor conditions closely and prepare for further deterioration should that be necessary.
Managing the present drought is of course essential, but we cannot forget to build drought resilience. We must also address the underlying pressures on our water system and prepare now for the conditions we expect in the decades ahead. Many Members of the Committee, particularly the noble Earl, Lord Russell, spoke about the El Niño effect. However, responding to drought, as has been noted this afternoon, is just one part of the challenge. We must also strengthen our resilience to future droughts. Most if not all noble Lords spoke about the importance of better information, monitoring and planning. I agree that effective drought management depends on access to timely reliable data and governance arrangements. That is why the Government accepted the committee’s recommendations to strengthen drought data collection and accessibility.
I reassure the noble Baroness, Lady Sheehan, that work is under way with the Environment Agency and partners to explore the development of the drought data hub. This will bring together key information on drought conditions and impacts in a more accessible and integrated way. Alongside this, monitoring capabilities continue to improve, helping us to identify emerging risks earlier and support more informed decision-making across sectors.
Clear governance is equally important. The Government are working with the EA and the National Drought Group to improve the understanding of the roles and responsibilities of organisations involved in drought planning, preparedness and response, ensuring that action is co-ordinated and effective. A number of members of the committee, including the noble Baroness, Lady Sheehan, and the noble Lords, Lord Ashcombe and Lord Krebs, also highlighted the importance of reducing demand and using water more efficiently. The Government agree that improving water efficiency is one of the most effective ways of strengthening resilience while protecting the environment. That is why we continue to work with MHCLG on proposals to improve water-efficiency standards while supporting the accelerated rollout of smart meters to help customers better understand and manage their water use.
The noble Baroness, Lady Sheehan, and the noble Earl, Lord Russell, asked about the consultation on strengthening water-efficiency standards in new homes. I am afraid that all I can say right now is that the response is expected in due course. That is the finest of Civil Service language, but I am afraid I cannot give any more detail: this is a timeline of which we are very much aware.
My noble friend Lord Sikka and others asked about improving water efficiency. The Government have a statutory target to improve public water supply consumption per person by 20%. These demand reduction measures are expected to save around 2,000 megalitres of water per day. Ofwat and the water companies launched the national water-efficiency campaign to promote water-saving behaviours earlier this year. We have also introduced mandatory water-efficiency labels that will help inform consumers on the water efficiency of products—I cannot be specific but, to respond to the noble Earl, Lord Russell, perhaps this might relate to taps—and help to save water and money and meet the demand reduction targets. Water-efficiency labelling is a key government intervention to support consumers and should save households around £1.9 billion on water bills and £1.8 billion on energy bills over 10 years.
Leakage reduction, as many argued, must remain a key priority: this was spoken to by the noble Lord, Lord Jay, and the noble Duke, the Duke of Wellington. Water companies have a responsibility to reduce leakage and to improve the resilience of their networks. Regulatory reporting on water company performance is expected shortly, and those water companies not on track to meet their leakage commitments will face appropriate regulatory action. We are very clear that they have a responsibility.
I owe the noble Duke, the Duke of Wellington, an apology in response to his question. Was it on Monday or yesterday?
Lord Katz (Lab)
Yes, Monday. They all blend into one sometimes. I realise now that I misunderstood the noble Duke’s question. We do have an ambition to urge water companies to act quicker. Perhaps I did not understand what he was asking. The Government have set an interim target to reduce leakage by 30% by 2032. We are expecting regulatory reporting this month, so watch this space. We are on it and we expect Ofwat to make sure that the water companies are too.
It is beyond unacceptable that 20% of the water supply is lost, whether we are in drought conditions or not. I think the water companies clearly understand the Government’s view on this, and I know that my honourable friend Minister Hardy has been very clear with them about this and the Government’s expectation of them, not least in the context of the forthcoming water Bill. An updated communications strategy, led by the National Drought Group, is in development to help promote year-round water efficiency and encourage more sustainable water use.
The noble Lords, Lord Ashcombe and Lord Frost, and the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, asked a number of questions about development and building regulations. The Government have committed to lower water usage in homes to reduce consumption to 110 litres per person by 2050, and we are, as I said, working with MHCLG to explore where building regulations could tighten water efficiency standards and enable consumers to save on their water and energy bills by using less water. Building regulations provide an opportunity for government to ensure that the water requirements of new housing are reduced to create environmental headroom for growth.
There was a fair amount of discussion about the Government’s decision to reject the third recommendation of the committee’s report on water companies being statutory consultees. To be clear, it is not that we do not understand the importance of this, but the dynamic should be reversed. The baseline is that there is a clear expectation that water companies plan properly for growth, and they have water management resource plans that drive them to do this, including preparing for one-in-500-year drought events. I am sure that many Members of the Committee are aware of that. So water companies have to plan for growth, which is why we are prescribing in the requirements that water and sewerage companies assist regulations, so they are obliged to assist with plan-making where reasonably requested. Water and sewerage companies are also listed as consultation bodies, so they will be made aware of key plan-making consultations where they have an interest. I hope that gives some comfort that we absolutely understand the importance of this.
The noble Lord, Lord Krebs, asked specifically what we are doing in existing homes. There is a really important role here for smart meters in improving resilience, as I said. We expect to install around 10 million smart meters by 2030, which will help customers to identify where they have leaks and better understand their water use. It will also help water companies to detect leakage and manage demand more effectively. So that area feels really important for the current housing stock, as well as for taking action with the new housing that we hope to build.
There was a lot of discussion about data centres. I am aware of the time, so I will not spend as much time as I could on this. The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester, the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, and the noble Earl, Lord Russell, all mentioned the impact of data centres. It is always pleasant to be able to say that I concur with the noble Lord, Lord Roborough, on this. It is important to understand that current evidence suggests that most data centres are not intensive water users. Another figure I will cite to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Manchester is that a techUK survey in 2025 indicated that 55% of data centres surveyed use dry or waterless cooling, 44% use hybrid and only 5% are water-cooled. Environment Agency analysis suggests that data centres in England currently use around 1.9 billion litres of water from the public water supply each year.
I will give some reassurance. The Committee will probably be aware that, on 28 October, Minister Hardy—I mention her again—issued a Statement on enabling sustainable data centre growth through responsible water energy. This set out that data centres will be asked to follow a water-use hierarchy, prioritising demand management, efficiency and alternative water supplies, before requesting a public water supply connection. We see what is happening in America. There is a very different landscape in this country, as the noble Lord, Lord Roborough, said, but we are very clear about the potential dangers. We want to expand data centres, as the Committee will be aware, but this is how we will do it.
Improving resilience is not simply about reducing demand but about ensuring sufficient and reliable supplies of water for the future. The scale of that challenge is significant. As many have noted, the EA’s national framework forecasts a water shortfall of around 5 billion litres per day by 2055. That is why we continue to support, as a Government, a twin-track approach: reducing demand while investing in new and enhanced water resources. That includes major strategic infrastructure. We are accelerating the delivery of nine new reservoirs, alongside strategic water transfer schemes. Construction is already under way, as we have heard, on the Havant Thicket reservoir, while local solutions will also be important in helping communities, farmers and businesses strengthen their resilience.
I want to reassure the noble Lord, Lord Jay of Ewelme, that we are accelerating the construction of those reservoirs. It is a key part of improving long-term resilience. It takes time, but that is why we have a twin-track approach of making sure that we reduce leakage in the present while preparing for the future by building this infrastructure. I think we can all agree that we should have done more much earlier. We are where we are and would not be starting from here if we could help it.
Several noble Lords spoke about the role of agriculture and local water management, including the noble Lords, Lord Ashcombe, Lord Trees, Lord Krebs and Lord Roborough. I am not going to cover all the ground that was raised. I will leave some comments about the strategic finance incentive to correspondence. I want to be clear that the Government continue to support water abstraction groups, which help local abstractors collaborate and participate in planning water resources. Since the start of the programme in 2024, the number of water abstraction groups has increased from eight to 14, with further groups expected to be established in the coming year.
We are supporting local water resilience through the Environment Agency’s local resource options programme, which has enabled groups of farmers and growers to identify and develop projects that improve water security, including irrigation reservoirs and water storage schemes. More than 30 projects have been completed, with several already progressing towards implementation. The Environment Agency is developing a multisector approach to explore shared water resilience solutions across a wider range of water users.
The noble Baroness, Lady McIntosh, and the noble Lords, Lord Trees and Lord Jay, all wisely raised the importance of letting those who know local landscapes and hydrology contribute to the effort to save water, and we are very keen and alert to ensuring that that can happen. The Government are also supporting farmers directly as part of this year’s drought support package. Up to £15 million is being made available through the water management grant to support the development of on-farm reservoirs and strengthen drought resilience across the sector.
The committee was also right to highlight the importance of modernising water management and regulation. The noble Lord, Lord Krebs, was one of those who mentioned this. We remain committed to reforming abstraction licensing and moving towards a more modern, digital and responsive system. Defra and the Environment Agency are also conducting an innovative smart abstraction trial in the Cam catchment, using real-time monitoring data and alerts to help farmers abstract water when conditions allow, while protecting river flows. Early findings of this trial are encouraging, and the pilot will continue until March next year.
Many noble Lords talked about and raised the importance of nature-based solutions, not least my noble friend Lord Sikka and the noble Lords, Lord Krebs and Lord Trees. The Government agree that nature-based solutions have an important role to play in strengthening resilience to both drought and flooding, while delivering wider environmental benefits.
The noble Lord, Lord Krebs, asked about spongy soils. I agree that improving soil health and reducing soil compaction can help land absorb and retain more rainfall, reduce surface run-off and allow more water to infiltrate into the ground, thus helping groundwater recharge.
The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Norwich talked about peatlands and moorlands. Restoring degraded peatlands can improve the landscape and the landscape’s natural water storage capacity by slowing the movement of water through the catchment, reducing the incidence of drought and flood risk. Previously, we have had discussions that I have enjoyed participating in about the regulations around burning. That is very much what those regulations are designed to tackle.
At this point I will also address the question from the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Norwich about chalk streams. I reassure him that the Government are focused on protecting and recovering chalk streams through investments across a wide range of areas in our Storm Overflows Discharge Reduction Plan and locally led project funding. Between 2025 and 2028 the water restoration fund is investing over £1.4 million of water company fines and penalties in chalk stream projects.
I am going to run out of time. Throughout today’s debate, there has been a consistent theme: the need to ensure that England is prepared for a future in which droughts are likely to become more frequent and severe. The committee’s report has made an important contribution to that discussion, and its central message is clear: we need to take a more proactive and long-term approach to drought resilience, ensuring proper investment and innovative and strong partnerships. Progress is being made but we also recognise that there is more to do. Climate change means that drought preparedness must remain a long-term national priority.
I have not had time to touch on the issue of food security that the noble Lord, Lord Trees, rightly raised, but I say to him that we have refreshed our approach to food resilience and stakeholder engagement through the establishment of a food preparedness group. We understand the importance of food security; it is of course national security.
Our ambition is clear: a country that uses water more efficiently, has secure and resilient supplies, protects and enhances the natural environment and is better prepared for the challenges of the future. In closing, I hope that I have demonstrated both the progress already being made and the Government’s determination to go further. I know that I have utterly failed to answer more than a fraction of the questions posed, and I have been slightly selective—are we not always?—but I beg the Committee’s indulgence in that. Once again, I thank all those who participated in this debate and the noble Baroness, Lady Sheehan, for securing it.
Baroness Sheehan (LD)
I thank the Minister very much for his full engagement on the issue, and all noble Lords who have spoken in this debate. It has been exemplary—an exemplar of the breadth and depth of the experience that Members of your Lordships’ House bring to debates such as this. I am in awe of the quality of the contributions that I have heard. I will not keep noble Lords very long; I want to make just two points.
The first relates to the circumstances in which the inquiry was carried out. It was following the drought, as we have heard, and in the confident knowledge that winter rainfalls would be 10% above where they used to be in the 1970s. The conclusion was that to survive drought, we had to capture and store the rain that did fall using solutions including nature-based solutions, reservoirs, household efficiency measures, et cetera. But I have been shocked. I thought I was not complacent about climate change, but I have been shocked by what we have seen this summer. Two droughts in succession is unprecedented. What has shocked me even more is the possibility that the winter rains may fail. That was not a possibility that we considered when we were doing this report.
I think it was the noble Baroness, Lady Jones of Moulsecoomb, who said that climate change is moving quickly and things are going to change. They certainly are. It was in that context that I concentrated my remarks on the most immediate measures that we could take. I hope very much that it will not be necessary but, just in case, let us not just trust our luck. Let us put in place some emergency measures now, other than just asking people to stockpile water bottles.
The only other point I want to raise, which was not covered and which I wanted to cover in my opening remarks but did not have time to do so, is the use of water by businesses. Some 59% of potable water is used by households, 20% is leaked into the environment through sheer negligence by the water companies and the other 20% is used by industry and businesses. Of the water that is abstracted from the environment, businesses use far more than farmers. Businesses are big users of water, but they do not have to tell us how much water they use. I fully take the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Roborough, that data centres could be efficient users of water because they can have closed-loop cooling systems et cetera, but the temptation to use cheap water, which becomes cheaper if you buy in bulk, must be great. We do not have mandatory reporting of water use by businesses. That is something we require for absolute transparency. It is what the Environment Agency and Ofwat told us they want to see. I leave the Minister with a final question: when will we see that?
I thank everybody again and commend this report to the Committee.
House of Lords
High Streets Strategy: Business Rates
(1 day, 6 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Pitkeathley of Camden Town
To ask His Majesty’s Government whether they are considering transferring liability for business rates from occupiers to property owners as part of their high streets strategy.
The Parliamentary Secretary, HM Treasury (Lord Pitt-Watson) (Lab)
Local government, property owners and occupiers can work together to improve high streets. I start by recognising that my noble friend has been at the forefront of the business improvement district movement, which the Government are keen to promote. Innovations such as the Camden Collective have provided vital incubation spaces for creative start-ups. However, the evidence suggests that shifting rates liability to landlords would be administratively cumbersome, and may disrupt funding for local services, so the Government are not considering this proposal at this time.
Lord Pitkeathley of Camden Town (Lab)
My Lords, I thank my noble friend the Minister for his reply. Having spent, as he alludes to, 20 years working with high street businesses, I know how much can be achieved when businesses and property owners work together. How will the Government’s high streets strategy encourage a stronger partnership between landlords and their tenants? Beyond the question of business rates liability, what other measures will Ministers consider to give property owners a greater stake in the success of the businesses occupying their properties?
Lord Pitt-Watson (Lab)
There is quite a long list of things to help. In the Budget alone, there is a 20% reduction for pubs and venues, 70,000 shops which will have no rates at all, and other leisure and retail outlets are frozen in real terms. There is the high streets strategy, with £210 million for the community assets programme, £125 million for derelict and vacant properties, and support for the extension of business improvement districts, including property owners outside of London being involved in the business improvement districts—I could go on. It is a broad programme to support the things that my noble friend would like to see happening.
Baroness Kramer (LD)
My Lords, with small and high street businesses under so much pressure, surely this is the time for the fundamental reform of business rates to, I suggest, a commercial landowner levy. I think we are past the point of fiddling at the margins. Do the Government recognise that a change such as this would enable hard-pressed small businesses to compete, to invest in energy improvements and to upgrade, bringing new vitality and jobs to the very heart of our communities?
Lord Pitt-Watson (Lab)
I reply to that in the same way as I did to my noble friend Lord Pitkeathley. The evidence suggests that shifting rates liability to landlords would be administratively quite cumbersome and would make it difficult for the funding of certain local services that want to go to particular types of shops and venues. That is why it is not being considered at this time.
The Earl of Clancarty (CB)
My Lords, following the question asked by the noble Baroness, Lady Kramer, does the Minister agree that, for arts organisations, which are often in a financially precarious position, it is their categorisation for business rates that urgently needs to be looked at? Does he agree with the Campaign for the Arts that regional theatres and cinemas, for example, should not be taxed at the same level as, say, an Amazon warehouse, as this ignores the value that these venues bring to community infrastructure, as much as high street businesses?
Lord Pitt-Watson (Lab)
I understand the point that the noble Earl is making. I cannot give him any assurances right now. The categorisation issues will be complicated ones. However, if there are places where he feels that there are problematic anomalies, perhaps we could talk about that, or he could write to me, and I can see whether we can do anything about it.
Lord Swire (Con)
My Lords, is it not time to accept that our high streets will never look the same again, from a combination of factors including online shopping, terrible car charges for anyone parking for more than a short time and out-of-town shopping centres? Surely the only way that we can regenerate our town centres is by encouraging younger people and families back into them, which, in turn, will engender a night-time economy and lead to a plethora of new businesses and shops. We need to think this from the start and stop fiddling around the edges.
Lord Pitt-Watson (Lab)
This is reflected in the high streets strategy. For example, the hospitality zones within the high streets strategy are making sure that we stop the conflicts that would otherwise arise between residential housing and hospitality in the same place. That is added to the rate reductions that I have talked about. The noble Lord is right that reviving the high streets may mean that there are different sorts of outlets on the high street, and that is very much at the core of the high streets strategy.
Lord Brennan of Canton (Lab)
My Lords, earlier this year, the noble Earl, Lord Clancarty, and I, along with others, went to visit the Minister’s predecessor, my noble friend Lord Livermore, to discuss the possible extension of business rates relief to recording studios in a similar way that has been granted to other cultural and creative industry facilities. Has any further thought been given to this—I noticed that it was not in the Budget this time—and will my noble friend the Minister undertake to look into it and write to those of us who are interested in the subject?
Lord Pitt-Watson (Lab)
I spent quite a lot of time trying to learn about rates, but I did not have a briefing on recording studios. I am more than happy to write to my noble friend. Perhaps he could write to me on the points that he was raising with my noble friend Lord Livermore, and I can then catch up on where that is getting up to, as I do not have an answer for him right now.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
My Lords, this Question recognises the parlous state of many high streets, due in large part to taxes of all kinds, including national insurance contributions and business rates, and indeed the impact of the higher minimum wages and increased energy costs and parking charges. Will the Government now see sense and reduce the burden of taxes and regulation that they have imposed? We all care about our high streets.
Lord Pitt-Watson (Lab)
I can only reiterate what was in the Budget: pubs and venues have 20% off, other rates are frozen in real terms and, most specifically, 70,000 high street venues will now no longer be liable for rates. That is a very substantial incentive, I hope, for the rebuilding of high streets, together with the wider high streets strategy.
Lord Cromwell (CB)
The Minister recognises that this is an evolving situation. I am sure he also recognises that many start-ups, which he referred to earlier, start in residential properties. Is he aware that, increasingly, clauses are being inserted into residential tenancies precluding the starting of a business or making the tenant liable for any rates which arise should the business be discovered by the council?
Lord Pitt-Watson (Lab)
I say to the noble Lord that, if there are specific instances where he feels that this is problematic, I would be more than happy to address those and see whether something can be taken forward. Of course, it would be something pretty fundamental, because this is about the agreement between the tenants and the landlord, but we would want such an agreement to be focused on the reviving of our high streets.
Lord Watts (Lab)
My Lords, is it not the case that our city centres and shopping areas have been in decline for over 20 years and the previous Government did nothing about it? This Labour Government have a string of measures to regenerate our towns and cities. Should not the Opposition be ashamed of their past record?
Lord Pitt-Watson (Lab)
The answer is yes, is it not? I have talked about the rates, the £210 million for the community assets programme, and empowering the business improvement districts—did noble Lords know that they raise £185 million in voluntary rates to improve the high streets? That is fantastic. There are also the model designs for high streets, hospitality zones, and putting the high street first when thinking about new public buildings. This is a programme to revive the high street, as my noble friend says, after many years of neglect.
Chelsea FC: Releasing Funds from Sale
(1 day, 6 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness D’Souza
To ask His Majesty’s Government what discussions are being held at Cabinet level about the use of funds resulting from the sale of the Chelsea Football Club to support survivors in Ukraine.
The Parliamentary Secretary, HM Treasury (Lord Pitt-Watson) (Lab)
My Lords, Ministers continue to engage across government on this issue. The Government have provided a clear legal route for the proceeds to be transferred for humanitarian purposes in Ukraine. Our priority is ensuring that they reach Ukraine as soon as possible. The door remains open for Mr Abramovich to act, but the Government are fully prepared to go to court if necessary to enforce the commitment he made when Chelsea Football Club was sold.
Baroness D’Souza (CB)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for his response. Despite what he says, even though the Government promised there would be court action in the event of non-settlement of the issue with Mr Abramovich, that court action has not taken place. I would really like the Minister to answer on that. Furthermore, the fact remains that a considerable amount of money intended to alleviate suffering in Ukraine remains in limbo. There must be other steps that the Government could take to end this four-year impasse between Abramovich and the Government on how the funds might be used. One suggestion might be to facilitate the charitable registration and work of the foundation that was established to manage the funds, which already been granted an initial government licence for distribution of aid in Ukraine.
Lord Pitt-Watson (Lab)
Let me be clear about this. On 17 December last year, the Government issued a licence creating a clear legal route for the transfer of £2.5 billion of Chelsea FC sale proceeds. Those funds have not yet been released. I imagine the noble Baroness is referring to the Foundation for the Victims of Conflict? I see she is nodding. It is for the Charity Commission to review that application. We have written to the application sponsor, Mike Penrose, and are awaiting his reply. If that charity is approved, the Government’s licence is clear that any money from the sale must go to humanitarian purposes in Ukraine. However, noble Lords will understand that because of the legal procedures that might take place, I am limited in what I should say publicly to your Lordships’ House.
Lord Shamash (Lab)
My Lords, I am sorry about my earlier enthusiasm: it was not brilliantly timed. What steps are the Government taking, along with our European partners, to arrange for the release of the £240 billion of frozen Russian assets in European and British banks to fund the Ukraine war effort?
Lord Pitt-Watson (Lab)
The Government’s support for Ukraine now amounts to £25 billion, of which £16 billion is military support. Some £4.3 billion of that was paid this year. The Russian assets remain frozen for the purposes of support to Ukraine.
Lord Bellingham (Con)
My Lords, is the Minister aware that Roman Abramovich has, through his representatives, suggested that against the £2.6 billion there is £1.4 billion in loans from offshore companies? What can he do to stop this money being set against the principal sum?
Lord Pitt-Watson (Lab)
The Government’s position is that Mr Abramovich gave a deed of undertaking when Chelsea was sold that, for the sale to take place, he would meet conditions under European law that the full sale proceeds would go to humanitarian purposes in the Ukraine. That remains the position.
Baroness Kramer (LD)
My Lords, do the Government understand that this legal warfare and paralysis is playing right into Putin’s hands by failing to deliver moneys that should be going to humanitarian causes in Ukraine because of constant delays. I am very concerned that £1.4 billion is not transferred to companies owned by Abramovich that claim they made loans to the entity and therefore have first rights. Can the Minister give us the Government’s assurance on that issue?
This is turning into Jarndyce v Jarndyce. How much is being consumed in legal fees and how much will that deplete the money that goes to the very worthy causes for which it is intended?
Lord Pitt-Watson (Lab)
As I said, the Government have laid out a clear legal route for the transfer of the money and are fully prepared to go to court if necessary to enforce the commitment that was made when Chelsea was sold. But, as the noble Baroness would expect, it would be ill advised for the Government to publicly discuss any potential litigation strategy.
Lord Ricketts (CB)
My Lords, almost three years ago in a report on Ukraine, your Lordships’ European Affairs Committee concluded that we found it incomprehensible that the Government had not yet resolved this problem. That was three years ago. Now, with the winter coming on in Ukraine and signs of European willingness to fund Ukraine faltering, surely if there is a legal route we should now drive down it. Does the Minister agree?
Lord Pitt-Watson (Lab)
We fully agree with that position, but, as I have said, it would be ill advised for the Government to publicly discuss any potential future strategy.
Baroness Neville-Rolfe (Con)
My Lords, more than four years after the sale of Chelsea Football Club, these funds remain frozen, no doubt accruing interest, while the humanitarian need in Ukraine continues to grow, as we have heard. I am keen to know why the delay is so long. Is this partly related to a tax dispute, given the huge increase in value of the club during Mr Abramovich’s tenure?
Lord Pitt-Watson (Lab)
It would be ill advised for the Government publicly to discuss potential future strategies. Possibly, the noble Baroness’s question needs to be addressed to Mr Abramovich. There is a clear legal route that has been presented to him to allow him to fulfil his deed of undertaking.
Lord Foulkes of Cumnock (Lab Co-op)
My Lords, the frozen Russian assets in the UK are well beyond the £2.5 billion of the Abramovich money. Each nation seems to be unwilling to take the initiative to unfreeze the assets, whether here, in Europe, in Canada or elsewhere, because they are worried about the reputation of their financial sector. The Canadians have now suggested an initiative in which they would lead, along with the United Kingdom, and then others would join in, so that all the frozen assets could be unfrozen together. Will the United Kingdom Government join with the Canadians in taking this initiative?
Lord Pitt-Watson (Lab)
The Government are committed to making Russia pay for the damage that it is causing in Ukraine and we will work with all international partners to consider all lawful routes to ensure that Russia does pay and that Ukraine gets the funding it needs. The UK and the wider G7 have absolutely committed to ensuring that Russian sovereign assets remain immobilised across our jurisdictions until Russia ceases its war of aggression and pays for the damage it has caused.
Lord Alton of Liverpool (CB)
My Lords, the Minister has referred to the Treasury licence and to the subsequent deed of undertaking. It would help your Lordships if he would agree to place copies of those in the Library for us to see. On the wider £185 billion of frozen Russian assets held in Belgium by Euroclear, referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Foulkes, a few moments ago, will the Government support the derisking and removal of those funds to a special purpose fund, removing Belgium and Euroclear from the crosshairs and enabling interest of around £5 billion annually to be urgently repurposed into the defence of the people of Ukraine, and indeed the defence of the wider community of Europe as well?
Lord Pitt-Watson (Lab)
I will ask my officials what can be made public in all of this. In terms of where we want to get to, I do not think there is much dispute in this House, but I do not want to be pushed to publicly discuss potential routes forward for making sure that the money that has been promised to Ukraine is given to Ukraine, and for proper purposes.
Capenhurst Facility: High-assay Low-enriched Uranium
(1 day, 6 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Rooker
To ask His Majesty’s Government what progress they have made towards their target to develop High Assay Low Enriched Uranium domestic enrichment capacity at the Capenhurst facility in Cheshire; and how much of the £196 million funding has been spent to date.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Energy Security and Net Zero (Baroness Curran) (Lab)
My Lords, a resilient, secure nuclear fuel supply chain for nuclear reactors is essential to deliver energy security and to support any ambitions to grow our nuclear reactor fleet. His Majesty’s Government have committed £300 million to establish a sovereign high-assay low-enriched uranium—HALEU—capability by 2031. Urenco has been awarded £196 million of this £300 million total to deliver a first of a kind HALEU facility, which is co-funded alongside government spending. We have seen great progress to date and the project is well under way.
Lord Rooker (Lab)
I thank my noble friend for that Answer. Does she appreciate the vitality of this new process for new reactors, particularly small modular reactors? The only material available at the moment for that kind of process is from China and Russia. It looks as though the UK, and the USA, have left it a bit late. Can the Government guarantee that Urenco’s work at Capenhurst will slip into the programme for the small modular reactors, so that we can get going? It has been delay, delay, delay, and that has to stop.
Baroness Curran (Lab)
I recognise the importance of that question, and the strength that lies behind it. We very much support that urgency and the need to make sure that it is all about delivery, and recognise the connection to the small modular programme, which is something that we will emphasise. In terms of this programme, we have broken ground, completed design milestones, and are on track for 2031. Funding is being drawn down appropriately on achieving project milestones. I asked specifically how that is monitored and how we push ahead with that programme. There is confidence, and we are assured of that; there is vitality in this programme. We understand its relevance, and that we must provide this as an alternative to Russian supply. It is vital for our security, and I commit to my noble friend that I will attempt to match his enthusiasm and drive to make sure that this happens.
Lord Wigley (PC)
My Lords, will the Minister give an assurance that there are no issues arising in Capenhurst that will be allowed to delay the new SMR programme for the replacement of the Wylfa power station in Anglesey?
Baroness Curran (Lab)
I have been assured that it will not create any delays. I will make sure that I answer the specifics of that and perhaps write to the noble Lord to make sure that I give him that assurance. As I stand here, my understanding is that I can categorically give that assurance.
Earl Russell (LD)
My Lords, we strongly support this programme, and recognise that it is an important part of increasing our resilience and making sure that we are not still dependent on the Russian nuclear fuel cycle. Can the Minister confirm when start-up is likely to happen? How are the Government working with our international partners on these matters, particularly given that America is also a major supplier of this type of fuel?
Baroness Curran (Lab)
We do believe that we are on track for a start-up in 2031, and of course we work with international partners. The UK is working closely with European partners to develop a secure and resilient supply, which will play an important role in also producing medical radioisotopes. We work closely with the G7 to remain close partners in discussions on how we build supply chains free of Russian influence. I am sure noble Lords will be aware that the UK has already implemented a direct ban on Russian uranium, in May 2026. This also restricts UK persons or entities from facilitating Russian uranium supply to third countries. We have a close working partnership with the United States on nuclear policy. I attended the G20 Ministers’ meeting, and in that dimension, there was good co-operation.
Lord Ravensdale (CB)
My Lords, I declare my interest as a chief engineer working for AtkinsRéalis. Within the plutonium stockpile at Sellafield, there is something of a goldmine: £60 billion worth of an isotope called americium. The economic benefit could be much wider than that, because if we can capture the full value chain of this isotope in using it for things such as nuclear batteries and space and defence applications, we could capture even more value in a new industry for the UK. To unlock private capital and private investment, we need clear assurances from the Government and the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority that they support this programme, to allow that investment to proceed. Can the Minister say when the Government will be in a position to provide those assurances?
Baroness Curran (Lab)
I have had a discussion previously with the noble Lord about americium, and I appreciate the briefing that he has given me. The Government have supported the UK’s National Nuclear Laboratory to extract americium from the UK’s civil separated plutonium inventory at Sellafield for the European Space Agency’s ENDURE programme. We recognise the potential importance of americium for other advanced technologies, including space power systems. We are currently working with the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority to explore opportunities for collaboration with industry. I should say to the noble Lord that no decisions have been made at this stage, but discussions are ongoing, and I have a funny feeling that he will ask for those further discussions to include him, which I am happy to do.
Lord Moynihan (Con)
My Lords, I declare my interest as chair of Amey, Acteon and Buckthorn Partners. Urenco at Capenhurst is a successful project, as the Minister said, funded by the UK and Dutch Governments and two private German firms, and it aims to become the West’s first commercial HALEU plant. Will the Government now take steps to encourage the development of a domestic fuel supply chain, including decompression and fuel fabrication, to capture the significant value of this emerging market? Does this success story not prove that we do not need to acquiesce to EU rules and call on taxpayers to fund expensive EU electricity projects to have a productive working relationship with the continent in the pursuit of low-cost energy?
Baroness Curran (Lab)
I thank the noble Lord for that question—he never fails to surprise me with some of the questions that he asks. I can commit to the domestic supply chain. It is important because, as I have said before from the Dispatch Box, we want to get a double hit out of our investment: not only is it about creating that supply chain, it is about the benefits that come with the supply chain and the skills and the jobs that that will mean for Britain. I guarantee to the noble Lord that that is a vital part of this programme. It is a success story for Britain that we should be proud of and that we should focus on. On his wider point about Europe, I am always willing to work with European partners and support the electricity market of Great Britain, and will continue to do so.
Lord Spellar (Lab)
My Lords, speaking of the supply chain, I want to reference the role of Sheffield Forgemasters, which was taken over by the Government with considerable extra investment, and yet when it comes to the small modular reactors we seem to be outsourcing a lot of the forging work to the Czech Republic and South Korea.
Baroness Curran (Lab)
I do not have direct details on that specific project so I will write to the noble Lord and make sure that I can address those issues. As he will know, the Government’s SMR programme is backed by £2.6 billion across the spending review period and will create 3,000 skilled jobs onsite during peak construction and thousands more across the supply chain. The Government’s ambition is for 70% of SMR supply chain products to be British built, which is shown by over 70% of our £900 million invested into supply chain contracts going into UK-registered companies. As I say, I want this investment to work twice, once in supporting our energy security mission and once for British jobs and British business.
Lord Morse (CB)
My Lords, after that encouraging statement, I ask the Minister whether we are giving the same level of energy to capturing all the intellectual property associated with this project that we possibly can, because in the past we have often failed to do that.
Baroness Curran (Lab)
To be absolutely honest, I cannot give a guarantee about that because it is not in my briefing and I have not asked for it. I will do that and I will be encouraged to pursue that issue, given that that has been a failure in the past. I will pay great attention to that and speak to the relevant officials.
Lord Rooker (Lab)
In the last three seconds of this Question, I thank my noble friend for the positive answers that she has given. But can she convince the House that, as far as civil nuclear power in this country is concerned, there is one overall policy and not a series of silos? That is what it looks like.
Baroness Curran (Lab)
I congratulate my noble friend on getting in in the last three seconds there. I recognise what he has said, and that is certainly not our intention. There is now much greater coherence to our civil nuclear policy. That is something that we want to argue for and proselytise about. Particularly as I am Scottish and live in Scotland, I see that some other Governments do not understand the importance of this industry, but that is something that I will certainly be advocating, as will my colleagues across the ministerial offices. We will make the point, if it is not clear to people, that there is coherence behind this. We see it as an answer to energy security and clean energy, so we need to address that. Noble Lords should believe me that the commitment is there.
Drugs: Prohibition and Criminalisation
(1 day, 6 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb
To ask His Majesty’s Government, in light of the rise in deaths linked to cocaine, ketamine and synthetic cannabinoid use, what plans they have to review their policy on drug prohibition and the criminalisation of people who use drugs.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Hanson of Flint) (Lab)
My Lords, drug misuse deaths in 2025 were down on those registered in the previous year. Every drug-related death, however, remains a tragedy. Drug deaths are best prevented by a combination of actions, including tackling drug supply, effective treatment and recovery support, clear societal messaging about the harms that drugs do, and a robust legislative framework to deter possession and supply.
Baroness Jones of Moulsecoomb (GP)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his Answer, but I did not hear anything new in there. Until the Government do have better drug policies, knowing the number of deaths from illegal drugs is incredibly important. To do that, you need to triangulate with health data, and you need to establish whether serious violence or suicide has taken place, especially for women. What measures might the Government take to make sure that their recording of deaths is actually accurate?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
The noble Baroness raises an important point, and I hope I can assure her that the Government take that seriously. We have asked the Advisory Council on the Misuse of Drugs to look at writing four reports for us, particularly focused on women and girls. That will include the role of drugs in domestic abuse and in wider violence against women and girls. We have also set up a working group to review matters concerning the very issue she raises, which is the recording of drug-related deaths and how they are defined across all parts of the United Kingdom.
Baroness Smith of Llanfaes (PC)
My Lords, drug poisoning accounts for 37% of deaths among prison leavers in Wales. Will the Government review whether current drug criminalisation policies are helping or hindering efforts to reduce post-release overdose deaths?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I will obviously reflect on what the noble Baroness has said, and we are always looking at what we need to do on drugs generally. This year, in fact, we have introduced a number of orders in this House which have put controls on certain drugs. Along with colleagues in the Ministry of Justice, we will look at the impact of drugs in prison, but overall, as I said to the noble Baroness, Lady Jones, drug deaths are down. That is a trend we want to continue to encourage, and one I will be working towards as Minister.
Baroness Doocey (LD)
My Lords, the director-general of the National Crime Agency has described how criminals are chemically bonding cocaine in everyday materials such as plastic and glue to evade detection. Given that the Government’s number one priority is to reduce the harm that drug does, does the Minister feel we have the right balance in the use of resources between pursuing people who have drugs for their own personal use and dismantling the ever-more sophisticated drug networks that are actually supplying the drugs?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
We have to take on the organised criminals who are supplying the drugs. In 2025-26, the National Crime Agency seized 189 tonnes of class A drugs. The quantity of illicit drugs seized at the border in 2024-25 was the largest, at 148 tonnes, recorded since 1973. So there are efforts to stop organised crime, but obviously, drug barons are looking at a whole range of methods, and the areas the noble Baroness has mentioned are extremely important. We need to keep on top of that, and that is why we have also put in some £3.4 billion over the next three years on drug and alcohol treatment as a whole, to ensure that we look at who the users of drugs are and how we can help support them.
Lord Pickles (Con)
My Lords, so far nobody has mentioned those who die as a result of drug use, particularly in road traffic accidents, but who themselves have never taken drugs in their lives. One of the great successes of the last 30 years has been the reduction in the number of people who die on the roads as a result of alcohol use. By the end of this decade, the number who die on the roads because of illicit drug use is likely to exceed the number who die because of alcohol use. There is variation from force to force in terms of the equipment used and the practices, so will the noble Lord consider getting police authorities together and getting best practice established, so that we can start to push down on drug use on the roads, as we have pushed down on drink?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
The noble Lord raises an extremely important point. He will know that some seven or eight years ago, we passed legislation in both Houses—I was then the shadow Minister in the House of Commons—on drug testing for driving, particularly for cocaine. He raises the issues of enforcement and good practice; I will take them back and reflect on them and, if I have any further information, I can reply to him. He needs to know that legislation on a cross-party basis has been passed, it will be enforced, and it is extremely important that we stop people who are under the influence of drugs driving vehicles.
Baroness Chapman of Darlington (Lab)
Will my noble friend the Minister please update the House on something we worked together on many years ago: specialist drug courts and the role they may have in reducing reoffending, particularly for people whose offending is related to their drug misuse?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I am grateful for my noble friend’s question. The use of drug courts, and judges having ownership of individuals who go through those courts and of the treatment those individuals get, is extremely important. That is a matter for the Ministry of Justice, but it is certainly something we are encouraging. We have put in place, as we did during previous Labour Governments up to 2010, significant numbers of drug treatment orders, which focus on helping people get off drugs in the first place.
Lord Paddick (Non-Afl)
My Lords, when cannabis was reclassified from class C to class B, there was no noticeable reduction in cannabis use. But when excessive use of genetically modified cannabis was publicised as being linked to schizophrenia, the use of cannabis then reduced. Does that not say to the Government that they should be spending more on drugs education?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
It is extremely important that we send messages out throughout the whole of the age range that using drugs has potential difficulties and can cause death. It is important that we do that in schools and raise education for those involved in drug use. Going back to the noble Baroness’s question earlier, it is important that we do that when people are in prison as well, to help them leave prison in a way which improves their behaviour and gives them a better chance in life outside. Those are important issues and not ones the Government will shirk.
Lord Bailey of Paddington (Con)
My Lords, given that street-level drug dealing is one of the greatest harms perpetrated on communities across this country, what extra work could the police be doing to stop this activity, which is often dealt with as low-level crime but has a real ripple effect on the community suffering from it?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
I have to say that I agree with the noble Lord that it is not low-level crime. The front-end of drugs being dealt on the street has an upstream effect on criminal gangs who are importing drugs and doing things which cause death and harm and lack of social cohesion. One of the things we are doing is ensuring that we have better enforcement. We are putting some 10,000 extra police officers on the beat during the course of this Parliament to look at neighbourhood policing. Neighbourhood policing leads to local policing and intelligence, and I would hope it will lead to better community involvement in reducing drug use on the streets.
Lord Brooke of Alverthorpe (Lab)
My Lords, I support the Government’s whole system, but I urge the Minister to ensure that we use more resources to stem the amount of drugs now being sold online, particularly ketamine, which is being sold so cheaply. This needs to be looked at very seriously, and we need to cut back on the availability of drugs online.
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
It is an important point and again, there is a whole range of mechanisms, via Ofcom, through which we can take down adverts and businesses that are involved in crime and antisocial behaviour online. My noble friend mentions ketamine, and I have to say to the House that the level of ketamine-related deaths is increasing significantly. There are always challenges, and my noble friend points to one on which we need to take sophisticated action online and offline to reduce usage and therefore help reduce the number of deaths.
Lord Davies of Gower (Con)
My Lords, does the Minister agree that, while some people seem preoccupied with talking about reparations for historic slavery, the drugs trade causes untold human misery and is one of the premier causes of slavery at all levels in the world today?
Lord Hanson of Flint (Lab)
The drugs trade is an evil trade; that is why the Government are committed to investing to ensure that we can reduce it. The 148 tonnes of illicit drugs seized at the border is the largest quantity seized since 1973. The drug barons need to know that the criminal justice agencies, the National Crime Agency and all local police forces will be after them to ensure that we hold them to account for this evil trade. I welcome the noble Lord’s support in doing that.
Railways Bill
(1 day, 6 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill
That the amendments for the Report stage be marshalled and considered in the following order: Clauses 1 to 11, Schedule 1, Clause 12, Schedule 2, Clauses 13 to 92, Schedule 3, Clauses 93 to 97, Schedule 4, Clauses 98 to 103, Title.
Terrorism Prevention and Investigation Measures Act 2011 (Continuation) Order 2026
(1 day, 6 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Hanson of Flint
That the draft Order laid before the House on 14 September be approved.
Relevant document: 13th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee. Considered in Grand Committee on 10 November.
Tobacco and Vapes Act 2026 (Display of Tobacco Products) (Consequential Amendments) Regulations 2026
(1 day, 6 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Merron
That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 14 September be approved.
Relevant document:13th Report from the Secondary Legislation Scrutiny Committee. Considered in Grand Committee on 10 November.
Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 (Cryptoassets) (Miscellaneous Amendments) Regulations 2026
(1 day, 6 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Lord Pitt-Watson
That the draft Regulations laid before the House on 15 September and 12 October be approved.
Considered in Grand Committee on 10 November.
International Claims Commission for Ukraine (Immunities and Privileges) Order 2026
(1 day, 6 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Antrobus
That the draft Order laid before the House on 14 September be approved.
Considered in Grand Committee on 10 November.
Youth Justice Board for England and Wales (Restoration of Powers and Responsibilities) Bill [HL]
Lord Oates (LD)
My Lords, I understand that no amendments have been set down to this Bill and that no noble Lord has indicated a wish to move a manuscript amendment or to speak in Committee. Unless, therefore, any noble Lord objects, I beg to move that the order of commitment be discharged.
Health Bill
(1 day, 6 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Coffey
“Support for helping people stay and get back into workIn the National Health Service Act 2006, after section 1C insert—“1CA Duty to support people to stay and get back into workIn exercising functions in relation to the health service, the Secretary of State must have regard to the need to offer workplace health provision support to—(a) small and medium sized employers, and(b) institutions and providers within the National Health Service, considering the need to support the workforce of—(i) small and medium sized employers, and(ii) the National Health Servicein order to tackle ill health and reduce work days lost to sickness.””
Baroness Coffey (Con)
My Lords, this amendment should be pretty topical because, according to the Government, the country is facing a NEET crisis. A lot of this is driven by people with poor mental health or a lack of mental well-being. In my time as a Cabinet Minister, looking after DWP and, for a short time, health, I long felt that if the NHS had to pay for the health benefits, a lot more attention would be given to getting people better, getting people well and recognising that it should be a duty of the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care to do what they can to help people get better.
In this probing amendment, the duty is about support to help people stay in and get back into work. I have gone into particular detail about occupational therapy or occupational health—whatever the latest term is. Apparently, nowadays it can be seen as bad to use the phrase “occupational health”, because employees may feel that this is their way to being fired. That is not the intention of good occupational health, and nor is it the outcome desired with occupational therapy.
I know that small employers struggle, and it is going to get more challenging. I think there is a duty on the NHS, and the Secretary of State—by effectively taking over all the functions of the NHS—will have an absolutely key role to play. Amid all the other duties and functions they are taking on, this one should really be at the top of their agenda.
There is no special reason why all of a sudden there is this NEET crisis. When I was Secretary of State, I had the lowest-ever youth unemployment figures, both seasonally adjusted and actual, in terms of people claiming benefits and people economically not working, so I know this can be done. It takes a lot of drive and effort. During Covid we were also helped with aspects such as getting the kick-start Bill going. By the way, I commend the current Secretary of State on managing to persuade the Treasury on the latest scheme to not have additionality as something that has to be proved. I appreciate that may not always economically be right, but sometimes the bureaucracy, as I explained to the Covid inquiry, meant that very good jobs were being set aside because of a lack of clarity or a lack of understanding.
This builds a lot on what Sir Charlie Mayfield has been doing for the Government; I appreciated the recent briefing organised by the Employment Minister, Andrew Western, at which Sir Charlie spoke. It is about how we help employers in particular to make sure that it is more straightforward for people to stay in work. As we know, it is not just about getting people back into work; it is about helping them stay in work and, once they come back in, trying to make sure that they succeed. Today is not the day to get into the whole PIP discussion—it is about how health can support this.
I have long believed—and there is no particularly easy way of saying this—that actually prescribing a job could be one of the nicest things that a doctor would ever do to somebody who is unwell in one aspect or another. As we saw in jobcentres, a lot of young people are lonely and not confident, and that spirals into a different way of doing things. Quite often, work coaches would end up being like the big brother, big sister or auntie who encourages people to stop looking at their feet and look at them, and to re-engage. That is what we are seeing in quite a lot of the challenges we have. Meanwhile—and I have some sympathy with this—healthcare professionals are saying, “We don’t want to be the gateway to benefits”. Nobody is asking them particularly for that to be their principal role; what I am sure everybody would like is a healthy society and particularly a healthy young population—but there is no doubt that small and medium-sized employers need some help on how to make that happen.
Lord Singh of Solihull (Con)
My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, and I thank her for Amendment 48. Small employers rarely have access to occupational health and the NHS, our largest employer, loses far too many working days to sickness. Her amendment is about helping people stay in work; mine is about helping young people to get there, often for the first time. I am glad that our amendments are grouped together, because they rest on the same principle. Health and work are not competing concerns but integral parts in a single life.
I speak to Amendment 279QF in my name and refer the Committee to my interests on the register. I am an NHS consultant psychiatrist, and for the last 25 years I have devoted my life to delivering early intervention in psychosis, nationally and internationally. My amendment asks the Government to commission an independent review of the therapeutic role of work in recovery from mental illness for young people. For far too long, we have treated work as an economic question, and almost never as a clinical one.
Let me begin with a paradox. When in life we are at our most physically robust, during late adolescence and early adulthood, we are at our most vulnerable psychologically. Half of all adult mental disorders begin around the age of 14 or earlier; 75% begin before the age of 25. Therefore, mental illnesses arrive just when a life is being built: exams are being sat, jobs found, relations formed and independence discovered.
Among the many serious illnesses, the most serious are psychotic disorders such as schizophrenia. They fracture your thinking, break your networks, scatter friendships and delay your education. When I began training, our approach to psychosis was gentle management of inevitable decline. However, I vividly remember a young man I met on a psychiatric round, very early in my training. We fell into a conversation. Rather randomly, he asked me whether life was worth living, almost as if it was a joke. I said, “Life is what we make of it. We can think of each day as a blank page in a diary and, within reason, we can choose what we write on it”. We parted company and I forgot all about him. Three years later, I received a letter from him. It said that he had been diagnosed with schizophrenia while a patient in that hospital. He had been told by a doctor that he would never recover. He was considering suicide. That accidental encounter with me changed his mind. He was now at university, fully well and looking forward to a future. If a few words from a stranger can provide such comfort to someone in such deep anguish, imagine what hope engendered by trained clinicians can do for those who suffer.
Early intervention in psychosis has completely changed our view of it, from pessimism about inevitable decline to optimism about intervening early. We now know that early intervention works. The earlier we intervene, the better the outcomes. England now has the best early intervention services in the world. Most young people with early psychosis now reach remission from their symptoms, but recovery is more than absence of symptoms. Your voices may have gone but you still do not have a job. You are staying in your bedroom. You have no friends and are socially isolated. You have nothing to look forward to. The young man who is no longer hearing voices has not recovered; he is simply not acutely ill any more.
This is where IPS—individual placement and support—comes in. This is an approach to vocational rehabilitation. Traditional approaches were “train, then place”. IPS says, “Place and then train”. It helps a young person quickly to find a job that is of interest and to their preference, and then supports them, along with their employer, to stay in employment. As my noble friend Lady Coffey said, employers need support for that as well. IPS does not wait for full recovery. Nobody is turned away because they still have symptoms. You may still be hearing voices or be slightly low or anxious. Added to early intervention, IPS increases employment rates from around three in 10 to around six in 10. In a randomised trial with colleagues, we went one step further; it was published in the British Journal of Psychiatry. We randomised teams into those where clinicians were given some training, along with IPS in both teams. Among the clinicians, we tackled their ambivalence about young people returning to work. Employment rates in those teams more than doubled, from 18% to 43%.
We found that the obstacle was not the illness as much as people’s ambivalence about young people with mental illness returning to work. Clinicians had told us, “Work would be stressful and would trigger a relapse” or “This young person does not have the confidence to go to work”. These fears were well intentioned but completely wrong. As I said in my maiden speech, diagnosis should never be a prophecy.
Work is not incompatible with recovery; it is an essential part of it. There is robust evidence of the benefits of work. Those who work less have poor mental health, and those who return to work see their mental health improving. Work gives a day shape, and it gives an individual an identity and a role in society. It also builds self-esteem. We assume that confidence must come before achievement, but it is the other way around. Self-esteem is not a precondition for achievement; it comes from achieving and from facing adversity—getting back to work despite having to struggle. If young people with psychosis can return to work, and work is healing, then we should be offering similar opportunities to a much larger group of young people who are suffering from depression, anxiety or neurodevelopmental conditions such as autism and ADHD. Trials of IPS in young adults with a range of mental illnesses show that it can be effective.
Let me be clear: this is not an argument about cutting benefits or using work as a stick. A young person pushed into work that they cannot yet manage may fail, and that failure will only confirm the prophecy we are trying to break. But offered with skill and at the right time, work is therapeutic. The economic case is compelling, but the case I make for this review is also clinical, moral and humane. I hope the Minister can tell the Committee whether the Government will commission such a review within 12 months, and whether she will meet the noble Baroness and me to discuss how both our amendments can find their place in the Bill. Thanks to early intervention, we no longer think of a 16 year-old with emerging psychosis as facing inevitable decline. For young people recovering from psychosis, a job is not a reward for getting well. Very often, it is part of how they get well.
Baroness Hollins (CB)
My Lords, I support both amendments in this group. The amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, draws attention to the responsibility of the NHS not only to treat illness but to help people remain healthy enough to work, and to return to work.
As a psychiatrist, I am especially concerned about the growing impact of work-related stress, anxiety and depression, and the figures are deeply troubling. A recent Policy Exchange report estimated that sickness absence in the NHS represents the equivalent of more than 80,000 employees being absent throughout the year—enough to staff 80 hospitals—at an annual cost of some £4.6 billion. In June 2025, anxiety, stress, depression and other psychiatric illnesses accounted for almost 30% of NHS sickness absences. Behind these statistics are people whose health and confidence have been damaged, colleagues struggling to cover their work and patients waiting longer for treatment. When one clinician goes off sick with burnout, colleagues must take on additional clinics. Their workloads increase, their own well-being suffers and the risk of further sickness absence grows. This is a vicious cycle. It cannot be resolved simply by encouraging people to return to work more quickly. We must ask what made them ill in the first place.
There is also a more disturbing dimension. Suicide among healthcare professionals is a serious concern, particularly in some clinical occupations. Data from the Office for National Statistics in the 10 years up to 2020 showed that there were an average of four deaths of healthcare workers by suicide every week. While we need to be cautious about interpreting occupational suicide statistics, we cannot ignore the distress experienced by staff working under sustained pressure. The NHS has a duty of care to its workforce, just as it has to its patients. Occupational health needs to be about much more than assessing fitness to work; it needs to include early psychological support, effective supervision, manageable workloads and so on. Small employers need access to similar expertise, which many cannot afford to provide independently. I hope the Government will consider how NHS occupational health services, working with other providers, might help develop accessible support for smaller businesses without diverting resources from patient care.
The therapeutic value of good work depends on the work itself being healthy. If we want the NHS to help people remain in employment, it must demonstrate what it means to be a good employer. I added my name to the amendment by the noble Lord, Lord Singh, calling for a review of
“the therapeutic role of work in health and recovery”.
Good work can give us a reason to get up in the morning. It can provide structure, purpose, friendship and the satisfaction of knowing that our contribution matters and that we have something worthwhile to give. As a psychiatrist, psychotherapist and family carer, I believe that these ordinary human experiences deserve much more attention in our discussions about mental ill-health prevention and recovery.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, I will speak very briefly to these two amendments. It is a great pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins, who made some of the points that I intended to make. We really need to give people the chance to meaningfully participate and to be part of society. Good work may be one route to that, but it may not be suitable or available to everybody.
The noble Baroness said that there is a great deal of not-good work out there, and I will point to some figures that recently came out on the loss of autonomy across the entire workplace. In 1992, 62% of people said that they had a great deal of discretion over the task they conducted and how they organised their working day. In 2024, that figure was 34%—it very nearly halved. People are not getting a sense of agency and autonomy in their workplace. That is without me getting into, as the noble Baroness did, the issues of zero-hours contracts, inadequate wages, unpaid overtime, et cetera.
Having said that, Amendment 279QF has some very good elements. I particularly applaud proposed new subsection (3)(a), which states that
“the Secretary of State must consult … young people with lived experience of mental health conditions and of being out of education, employment or training, and their families and carers”—
nothing about us without us. It is crucial that it is there, but I respectfully suggest to the noble Lord, Lord Singh, that perhaps this would be better as a “good work and meaningful participation in society” amendment or something along those lines.
I am afraid that I respectfully disagree with Amendment 48 from the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey. I will be interested to hear what the Minister says about it. A basic principle of the NHS from the very start has been that healthcare is provided on the basis of need. Giving the Secretary of State a special duty to help get people back into work would take away from that basic fundamental principle. Not making it on the basis of need and seeking to use the NHS to serve the economy would be a disturbing change in principle that needs to be highlighted and questioned.
In introducing the amendment, the noble Baroness talked about prescribing a job. That terminology would be really frightening to many people. I have met people with serious mental health conditions—we know there are significant numbers of them, including people in the NEET category—who are not applying for benefits, stepping away from the system and not getting help because it is really frightening to them. We absolutely do not want them doing that with the health service. If the health service were seen as a place of fear or compulsion then that would be dangerous to their future health and well-being and, indeed, the future health and well-being of society.
Lord Mawson (CB)
My Lords, I welcome these two amendments because they encourage us to debate a very important matter—employment. I have said before that the GPs I work with would remind us that, in the very challenging communities in which they work, getting a job does more for people’s health than anything they can do as doctors. We have done lots of work in this space over the years in east London and we are now replicating that practice around the country. It is why people like me are encouraging the health service and the public sector to learn from science and business that you innovate and learn only by doing things, not by writing clever reports or academic documents at 60,000 feet. You actually have to engage.
For example, to pick up the point from the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, we have been running for over 15 years, with Investec, a jobs and small business programme in east London. It has been enormously successful. We have built 97 businesses, or local people have, many of them with health, mental health and other complicated conditions. When you get into the granularity of all that and you watch people’s lives, you watch what happens to their children and their family when they get a job and how things actually change, it is an extraordinary thing, that journey. It is a journey, I feel, and that is why I have been challenging the direction of travel of this legislation and this Government, because I fear we are missing a serious opportunity. If it is true what Michael Marmot and some of us saying—we come to very similar numbers that 70% to 80% of the determinants of health are social and nothing to do with doctors—then we enter this space, which is really important.
I declare my interest: I am working on a 30-acre site in Surrey at the moment, with a school that has been in very difficult circumstances. In the middle of that, there is an old primary healthcare building stuck there, disconnected from the school. There is a college behind a fence over there, which is doing what the head teacher would describe as babysitting children. Is this really about employment or is it ticking boxes? You have a large piece of land where you could bring health, education and housing together in a very interesting environment. We are looking at that opportunity. There is a real opportunity there to build what this Government call a neighbourhood health centre.
I am into all that, but neighbourhood health centres in the modern world cannot be just about bringing biomedical people together in a building—a biomedical box. That is not taking seriously what this conversation is about. We need to build multidisciplinary teams. We got into employment, health and wealth seriously over the years. We have even done projects with eight year-olds on developing their business plan. It is really interesting what happens when you do that with children. It would be interesting to have the Minister’s response on this. There is an opportunity, with neighbourhood health centres, to innovate, do something seriously and pick up the strands of this discussion.
I suggest that the way we get beyond the concerns from the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, is to create practical learning by doing cultures on the ground, because all that theoretical stuff then falls away as irrelevant. You get into people with names and addresses, you watch what happens as you bring business, entrepreneurs, health practitioners and teachers together on the ground, and you start to build multidisciplinary teams. Innovation and something rather different happens. It absolutely relates to what the noble Lord, Lord Singh, said. I have been involved, as has he, in mental health, because mental health is a really big issue in these communities. You begin to get into the detail of that and beyond the theory into practice. When you watch a young person or an adult move away from many years of dependency and drug use—much of that drug use, by the way, at great expense from the NHS—you watch them take on life and see what happens to their children and family, my goodness it is a great inspiration. My view is that that is what these neighbourhood health centres should be about is multidisciplinary teams, learning by doing and getting into the granularity of what this discussion is about.
Lord Kamall (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friends Lady Coffey and Lord Singh of Solihull for their amendments, and, in fact, to all noble Lords who spoke. We know that ill health is an issue not only for individuals, families and the community. At the macro level, it is a principal driver of economic inactivity, with millions of people of working age not working because of long-term sickness. Recently, my noble friend Lord Howe and I met with a GP who wanted to share his experience. He said that he was told that 93% of all notes that GPs sign are sick notes, so only 7% were to return them to work. His suggestion was that maybe the GPs in those situations should be asking for a second opinion, because there is a clear imbalance going on.
For many, work provides more than an income. It offers independence, purpose, structure and social connection, and losing that connection due to ill health has wider consequences, as the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins, and the noble Lord, Lord Mawson, said. Both my noble friends said that we should think of employment not simply as a matter for the Department for Work and Pensions but as part of someone’s well-being. That was very well illustrated by the real-world example that my noble friend Lord Singh of Solihull gave from his experience as a psychiatrist.
Baroness in Waiting/Government Whip (Baroness Hyde of Bemerton) (Lab)
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that warm welcome.
With permission, I will address Amendments 48 and 279QF together, which look at the very important relationship between health and work. I agree with the point made by the noble Lords, Lord Mawson and Lord Singh, and the noble Baronesses, Lady Hollins, Lady Bennett and Lady Coffey—possibly all noble Lords who have contributed today—that good work, and I say that advisedly, is good for health, which is why we are already taking action to address the relationship between work and health. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Singh, that work and health are not competing interests. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Kamall, that the responsibility for good health does not sit just within the DHSC.
We already have programmes that bring together health and employment support around the individual, including health and growth accelerators. We are already acting at scale. This month, WorkWell began its national rollout across every ICB in England, building on pilots that have already supported around 25,000 people. Backed by up to £259 million over three years, the expanded service could support up to 250,000 people with health conditions to stay in work—this goes to the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey—or return to work. The 10-year health plan is clear on the critical role that the health system has, alongside local partners, in addressing health-related economic inactivity, especially through prevention and early intervention, which the noble Lord, Lord Singh raised.
Sir Charlie Mayfield’s independent Keep Britain Working review, published a year ago, highlighted the scale of the problem of people falling out of work for reasons of ill health and disability, including mental health conditions, and the vital role employers can play in addressing this. Further, the Government are already taking forward the development of a better model of workplace health provision through the Keep Britain Working programme. This system is intended to improve access to support for employers of all sizes, including the small and medium-sized enterprises referred to by the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, and will be supported by a robust, recognised BSI employer standard. We are testing reforms to the fit note process so that the system works much better for patients, employers and GPs. These are aimed at moving from administrative sickness certification to a service focused on getting people the support they need to stay in work or return sustainably.
Finally, we have commissioned the recent Fonagy review and the forthcoming independent Milburn review, given the importance that the Government place on the relationship between work and health. Alongside this, given that several noble Lords mentioned young people, the Government are investing £2.5 billion by 2029 into the youth guarantee and the growth and skills levy. This investment will support young people and create up to 500,000 opportunities to learn and earn.
We do not believe that additional statutory duties or reviews are the right approach here. We are happy to offer the noble Lord, Lord Singh, the noble Baronesses, Lady Coffey and Lady Hollins, and other contributors today a meeting with the officials working on the Keep Britain Working thread. The Government are already taking significant action in the health and work space, and I hope that noble Lords are reassured that the Government recognise the importance of this issue.
Lord Mawson (CB)
My Lords, this all sounds fine in theory, but people like me are nosy—we go and have a look under the carpet at what is happening, in detail, in the machinery. Often, this machinery means well but the structures and siloed systems prevent the kinds of relationships that need to happen in the modern world.
I will illustrate this. From 2015, for many years I led the Well North programme for Duncan Selbie, which has now evolved into a national programme. It is interesting to talk to the Well Doncaster programme, which the noble Baroness, Lady Armstrong, will be pleased to hear now has 34 staff and operates across Doncaster —it is a fantastic success story and some great things are happening there. But I was talking to one of our lead colleagues there just a few weeks ago, who was saying that, in Doncaster, the Pride in Place programme is completely disconnected from this programme. I am sharing this with the Minister because there is a desperate need to get under the carpet of these practical issues, otherwise we will say all these wonderful things but—I say this from experience—very little will change.
Baroness Hyde of Bemerton (Lab)
I thank the noble Lord for those points. I recall that I did not answer substantively his point on neighbourhood health, and the further point he has raised cuts to the heart of that. I am very optimistic, as a former lead member in a local authority and now a Minister in this place, about the opportunity of neighbourhood health. It is a great moment to get away from the model of a clinical box and viewpoint and work holistically across a wide range of services. Let us continue to look under that bonnet together, because we are driving at the same aim here: improved health for all our communities, outside the silo of DHSE.
Baroness Coffey (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Singh of Solihull for his amendment and for the other contributions made. I respect the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle, but—it will probably be the same the other way around—I do not agree with what she has asserted today. I think work is a good thing.
I am grateful to the Minister for her reply. As I expected, sadly, the Health Minister did not contribute in this debate, which somewhat sums up the situation we have within government. It is my understanding that the noble Baroness, Lady Hyde of Bemerton, is a Government Whip—I did not know that she had a policy role in the Department of Health and Social Care.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
The noble Baroness is being extremely discourteous. It is the tradition in this House that, when a Bill is going through, duties of the Government Benches are shared by Ministers and Whips, and my noble friend is doing it very well.
Baroness Coffey (Con)
I am not disputing that the noble Baroness spoke very well. I am just saying what I feel it shows about this key issue. Sir Charlie Mayfield’s review is nothing new; it is great that he agreed to do it and has the clout, but it is no different from reports that came out in the last year. It is great that Alan Milburn is engaged—I hope he will bash heads together to get something really powerful done, and he has the clout to do that. I am flagging that, sadly, the Department of Health and Social Care and the NHS more broadly tend to not really get engaged. I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins, for her contribution in that regard.
The NHS has a challenging time ahead with its own employees, and so does business. That is why working together will be absolutely vital.
Finally, noble Lords have talked about friendships. There is a workforce survey used by the best companies in the world: Gallup’s Q12. The most important question is question 10: “Do you have a best friend at work?” Initially, that can be quite a difficult thing to get through. Here we are on Armistice Day; people who serve their country often do so because they have their friends and comrades and the camaraderie. That matters at work too. That is why, building on what my noble friend Lord Singh of Solihull said, we need to look at this carefully. I hope the Department of Health gets far more engaged than simply the DWP programmes we have heard about today, which I still hope will continue to do well. With that, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Baroness Coffey
“Promoting access to dentistry equitablyIn the National Health Service Act 2006, after section 1C insert—“1CA Duty to promote access to dentistry equitablyIn exercising functions in relation to the health service, the Secretary of State must have regard to the need to ensure provision of dentistry across England accessible to all regardless of wealth or geography.””
Baroness Coffey (Con)
My Lords, I have tabled an amendment about dentistry. With the agreement of others, I degrouped it so that we could have a short but focused debate on what is a key part of healthcare but one where access is so variable across the country that it is really struggling.
I appreciate that the Government have made some changes to the dental health contract. Three years ago, when extra UDAs—units of dental activity—were offered around the country, only one dentist in my own county of Suffolk took up the opportunity. That dentist was in Lowestoft. A couple of years ago, an adult could get added on and get routine NHS dental care at seven dentists within a mile of this place. At that time in Suffolk, you had to go about 35 miles to be able to access that if you were not already registered with a dentist. At the same time, we saw a lot of the dental providers for which people pay insurance pulling out of many rural areas. That is why I have been careful to put “access … equitably” in the amendment. Later amendments, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon, refer to the “dental deserts” of which I am well aware.
I am pleased to announce some progress. In Suffolk, you now have to go only 12 miles to get to two dentists where you can see an NHS dentist. After that, it is another 23 miles to potentially see three more. Meanwhile, here in London, near the House of Lords, where no dentist is taking anybody on unless they are eligible for free dental care within a mile, you can find 14 dentists within two miles. That difference is happening not solely in Suffolk or London but right across the country.
A lack of dental provision has many significant impacts. It is not quite the same as not being able to get an operation. Things can be done in different ways, urgent care may well be available, and it does not necessarily stop people working. But it impacts their daily lives. As I said, I appreciate that the Government have done more, but I am not convinced that they have gone into the level of detail to make sure that the National Health Service is happening nationally when it comes to dentistry.
I would like to understand more from the Government on what they are doing on the measurement of access and on UDA distribution across the country. I appreciate that if you live in a rural area, you are not necessarily going to have 15 dentists within two miles of where you live. I get that. But it feels very focused on our major cities, where there is availability right now but it is very difficult to access, especially when providers are also withdrawing their private practices for people who pay insurance.
I will be interested to hear from the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, about his “state of dentistry” report, which is definitely worth doing. I encourage the Government to do that even if they do not want to put it in this Bill. I am very conscious of dental deserts. With that, I beg to move.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, I have Amendment 213 in this group. What is interesting in relation to dentistry is that on the one hand we know that many people are finding it difficult to get access to NHS dentistry, but on the other hand we rarely debate dental matters in Parliament. This is a welcome opportunity to allow the Government to say some more about what they have been doing and to discuss ways in which we might see future improvements.
There is no question that since Covid there has been a sharp drop-off in the number of adults who have seen an NHS dentist in the previous two years. It was never good—it has always hovered around 50%—but, as I understand it, it has dropped to 40%. Behind that is the fact that there are areas where it is very difficult to get a dentist. We know that some people have had to go abroad, particularly where expensive treatment is concerned, because they cannot get it on the NHS. In some situations we have seen reports of people doing DIY dentistry, which, frankly, takes us back many decades.
The Government have done a lot. One must acknowledge the phased introduction of the new contract, the commitment to providing an additional 700,000 urgent and emergency NHS dental appointments each year, rolling out supervised toothbrushing programmes for children and supporting the expansion of water fluoridation schemes. These are all making a big difference and I commend the Government for them, but clearly there are some fundamental underlying issues which still need to be tackled, including workforce issues, such as whether we have the right contract to provide preventive dentistry. I agree with the BDA that the units of dental activity do not meet the modern needs of oral health in this country and we have to start to move away from that.
My amendment is about ensuring that we get, on a regular basis, an assessment of the state of dentistry services in this country, alongside a more general analysis of oral health challenges to enable us as a country and as a Parliament to have a regular update of where we are going, what the problems are and how we can solve them. This is a very long amendment, which I plead guilty to drafting, but I hope the Government will understand the principle behind it and the need for us to try to prioritise dentistry in a way that has perhaps not been done over the last few years.
Lord Patel of Bradford (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I support the aims of all three amendments in this group. At Second Reading I raised the stark health inequalities facing people living in our coastal communities, and I thank the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, and the noble Baroness, Lady Tyler, for introducing my amendments while I was not here. I particularly thank the Minister for agreeing to meet us to discuss coastal and rural health inequalities. For clarity, when I am talking about coastal communities, I normally think of small towns of 10,000, 20,000 or 50,000 people. Collectively, we are talking about 10.4 million people, which is nearly a fifth of the population.
I declare my interest as chair of the Coastal Navigators Network, a community interest company originally founded by NHS England. It brings together more than 20 coastal towns and locations to put into practice the recommendations of Sir Chris Whitty’s 2021 report, Health in Coastal Communities. Several of those areas are working to improve oral health and access to NHS dentistry through prevention, local workforce training, and community-based services. Their experience can help us understand where people are struggling to get care, and what needs to change locally.
Sir Chris Whitty’s latest report, Health in Rural Areas and Small Towns, was published just last week. It highlights a national framework for improving oral health in rural and coastal areas. This has been developed by the office of the Chief Dental Officer, working together with the Coastal Navigators Network. The work is led by Jason Wong, the Chief Dental Officer for England, and his team. Our contribution has been to bring practical experience and case studies from our coastal communities.
I was going to give two examples, but I will only give one, because one was about Lowestoft, which the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, has already mentioned. The other example is Dorset, where the report says that only 35% of adults currently access NHS dental care, and no practices are accepting new adult NHS patients. In response, Health Sciences University, based in Bournemouth, and NHS Dorset are developing a proposed oral health institute, bringing together care, prevention and local workforce training. It is intended to support more than 30,000 clinical patient contacts a year. That is an amazing, potentially promising, answer, but they need the premises and facilities to deliver the care, and train the workforce.
The latest business case still shows a funding gap of around £10.25 million, mostly in capital funding. Without that capital investment, there is a real risk that this work will be delayed, or that the institute will not go ahead at all. The Dorset example shows why identifying unmet need must lead to practical action. Commissioning more NHS dental care will take us only so far if the facilities to provide it are not there. We need capital investment alongside commissioning, so communities can develop services and train the people who will deliver them.
The geographical problem is substantial, and perhaps the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon, will talk about this. A study published in the British Dental Journal in August estimated that around 2.3 million people in England live in neighbourhoods with a centre that is more than 5 kilometres from the nearest NHS dental practice. But distance is only part of the problem. Is the practice accepting NHS patients, and can someone without a car get there? For coastal communities, transport difficulties, travel costs and a shortage of NHS appointments can put all the care out of reach. That is why I welcome Amendment 213, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, and the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon, with its emphasis on unmet need, workforce distribution and geographical inequalities. National and ICB averages must not hide communities where access is particularly poor.
I also welcome the focus of Amendment 216 on practical action, including emergency access, contract reform and workforce planning. There is, however, an important question about how we identify a dental desert. Amendment 216 counts practices: excellent. The British Dental Journal measures distances from one place, a home, to a dental practice. Both are useful, but we also need to know whether those practices have any NHS appointments available, and whether people can reach them.
I would welcome the Minister’s response on a couple of practical points. Will the Minister ensure that reporting shows whether people in coastal communities can actually get NHS dental appointments, and include the barriers caused by workforce shortages and difficulties with travel? Where that reporting identifies unmet need and dental deserts, how will the Government ensure that commissioning and investment follow? Will that include capital funding, where the premises and facilities are simply not there, when they are needed to provide care that is missing? Without that commitment to act, we risk describing the problem again and again, without helping people get the care that they need. More widely, will the Government use the national framework developed by the Chief Dental Officer’s team to help other rural and coastal communities facing similar problems?
Finally, I would appreciate it if the Minister could ask officials to work with the Dorset partners to explore how the proposed oral health institute can move forward so we do not lose such an invaluable option.
Lord Young of Cookham (Con)
My Lords, I shall intervene briefly in this debate on a subject on which I have interrogated the Minister from time to time. I shall make three points.
First, when I asked an Oral Question last year, 2.2 million people needed urgent dental treatment, as we have heard from the noble Lord, Lord Hunt. Since then, we have had 700,000 additional appointments, which I welcome. Can the Minister tell me whether the figure of 2.2 million needing urgent care has now been reduced?
Secondly, each year 30,000 children have rotten teeth extracted under anaesthetic. That is a terrible statistic. Has any progress been made in reducing that appalling figure?
The third point, which is related to the second one, was also touched on by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt: progress with fluoridation. I asked the Minister about this last year and she said:
“On water fluoridation, as the noble Lord said, an extra 1.6 million people across the north-east will benefit from a water fluoridation scheme following quite a lengthy process and that will start in 2027-28”.—[Official Report, 19/3/25; col. 1228.]
Why is there such a lengthy process? And are any other areas following up this very welcome initiative in the north-east? I look forward to the Minister’s reply.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB)
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Young, has highlighted the problem specifically for children. I shall expand on that slightly, because this is a major public health problem. Prevention is essential. Children who have had their teeth extracted may do fine if they are fit and well, but there is another group of children who are already ill, who may have a malignancy or may be on chemotherapy, or who have learning difficulties. There is a need for even more prevention measures for those children because, at every stage where they get tooth decay, their risks of things such as septicaemia and so on go up.
It is also a public health issue. In schools, children are now being taught to brush their teeth, which is excellent. The fluoridation programme is to be commended, and some of us would like to see it rolled out even faster. However, the other area is fizzy drinks, sweets, babies being given sugary dummy things to suck, and so on. Children are being brought up to have tooth decay, sometimes from the age when they are weaned.
These are all big public health initiatives, but the health service is being left to pick up the tab. I found it rather worrying that the cost of these decay-linked dental extractions in young people is over £50 million a year. This is not insignificant, and it really needs to be tackled.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, I will speak very briefly. I begin with an apology to the British Dental Association, because I told it I had signed Amendments 213 and 216 but then found the email stuck in my outbox this morning.
I shall make just two points. First, the arguments for action, at least in those two amendments, have already been powerfully made, even though we have not yet heard from the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon. I had a meeting with my honourable friend Adrian Ramsay in the other place with a great organisation, the beautifully named Toothless in Suffolk, which is now Toothless in England. It is great to see people getting out, campaigning and doing politics, but they should not have to campaign to get basic dental services. To pick up on the figure mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, six in 10 adults have not seen an NHS dentist in the last 10 years.
Secondly, following on from the point that has just been made about children’s health, we also need to consider dentistry at the other, older end of life. There is increasing evidence of the effects of a systemic inflammatory burden on heart disease and diabetes, and there is very good evidence that it makes managing blood sugar more difficult. There are increasing links to pneumonia, exacerbation of COPD, and, potentially, joint inflammation and Alzheimer’s. We tend to think of dentistry as being one thing and health another, but actually we need to join all this up and see dentistry as requiring the same focus and attention—as part of the whole general health of our society, rather than as a separate thing.
Lord Lansley (Con)
My Lords, I want to intervene in this debate to talk about dentistry, particularly for the reasons set out by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath. We do not debate dentistry much, and insofar as this Bill is not changing but simply restating the commissioning obligations of the NHS, we should take the opportunity to say, as we will in a number of other respects as we go through the Bill, that there is room for reform. That reform may not necessarily require primary legislative change, but that does not mean we should not take the opportunity to make those points.
To follow up on what noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, said about the need to move on from units of dental activity being the basis, my noble friend Lord Howe and I fully agreed with that thought 15 years ago. That was why we entered into the now tedious process of trialling, piloting and then prototyping how a new dental contract would work. Its purpose would be to pay practices on a capitation basis, with a focus on preventive work and the maintenance of good oral health, rather than remuneration by reference to units of dental activity and what is regarded as the treatment treadmill on which dentists had worked. Notwithstanding the Government’s view in 2023 that these prototypes were a failure, the principles remain right. Therefore, we should say to the Government: do not let it drop.
First, the capitation was based essentially on existing populations, and the whole point of the system would be to establish the initial oral health status of a given population to a degree of granularity that enables it to be a serious measure of what needs to be done. That would be really important, taking the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Patel of Bradford, in places where there are serious deficiencies in present oral health status. It would allow us better to modulate dental resources to the places where the need is greatest. The first thing is therefore to get that capitation—that basis—right, and there is going to have to be an initial investment to establish the oral health status of the population in relation to dental practices before we start down the process of remunerating practices for the work they have to do.
Secondly, the structure of payment to dental practices needs to move away from treatment towards prevention and the maintenance of the oral health of the population. Once we have a good measure at the start, we can assess how well practices are doing. That means that we have to introduce for dentists a quality and outcomes framework with similar incentive effects to the framework for GP practices; it should adopt a similar approach. In addition, we must be clear that the purpose of this is to maintain and increase good oral health, and therefore to reduce the number of treatments. Indeed, the prototypes of the new dental contract took various forms, but it did lead to a significant reduction in the number of treatments. However, because the incentives were not aligned properly, dental practices were not then incentivised to increase access. The whole point is to reduce the number of treatments and to increase patient access to NHS dentistry.
We should aim to arrive in the long run at a point where not only children but most adults assume that they can access NHS dentistry. We will have to be open to combining NHS entitlements in the maintenance of good oral health with the ability to use private dental care.
Finally, the Treasury had a hand in all this, and some 10%—or in some cases maybe more—of the patient income did not materialise in these prototypes because the patients were not paying for the treatments. We received about £860 million a year by way of dental charging, and losing £100 million or thereabouts was not something the Treasury was very keen on. But that just means we should have dental charging that is not linked to treatments. The logic says that if we are aiming for a dental contract which prioritises access, good oral health and preventive work, then so should the charging regime; all these incentives have to be aligned.
I hope that, notwithstanding the unhappy experiences that many would say the dental contract reform process has suffered up to now, we do not give up. We should go back to it. We should look at it and say we have learnt a lot. That means that we have to go back into this process, reasserting the principles and aligning the incentives with those principles.
Lord Kakkar (CB)
My Lords, I support Amendment 213 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, and the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon. I wonder whether the Minister might comment on the fact that while chronic gum disease in itself is a bad thing, resulting from a lack of access to primary dental services, it is associated with a profound impact on systemic health and, in particular, chronic diseases such as cardiovascular disease. Those with gum disease are at far higher risk of heart attacks, stroke and narrowing of the blood vessels—atherosclerosis.
In establishing the principles and the mechanism for the delivery of a regular state of NHS dentistry report, with the capacity now to federate across different datasets in the NHS, we would have the opportunity to start understanding the relationship between the failure to provide primary dental services and the prevalence of other chronic diseases, in particular cardiovascular diseases. That might well help further improve the mapping of services and local investment not only in dental services but in services for other, potentially fatal diseases.
I wonder whether the Minister and indeed the department have considered how this report might be the stimulus for bringing together other datasets and understanding the impact of the failure in dentistry provision on the broader health of the nation.
Baroness Pidgeon (LD)
My Lords, we have had a really good debate on this group of amendments. My Amendment 216 addresses one of the most persistent inequalities in our healthcare system: the growing number of communities that simply cannot access an NHS dentist. For too many people, finding an NHS dental appointment has become an impossible task, with entire areas effectively becoming dental deserts. Other amendments in this group are very much in the same place.
Amendment 216 would require the Secretary of State to establish a scheme specifically designed to tackle that problem, ensuring that integrated care boards can guarantee emergency access to NHS dentistry and provide free dental check-ups to children, mothers within one year of having given birth, pregnant women and low-income households. The amendment recognises the current state of access to NHS dentistry across the country, and that preventive care is better for patients and more cost-effective for the NHS than treating advanced dental disease later.
However, my amendment would go further by recognising the critical importance of dental health for patients facing serious medical treatment and guaranteeing dental appointments for those about to start chemotherapy or undergo transplant procedures. It would help ensure that necessary treatment was not delayed because of untreated dental problems and would support those patients at a time of great need.
In this debate, we have heard of how dentists are remunerated. My amendment would require the publication of a reformed dental contract before the scheme was introduced, because the current contractual arrangements have contributed significantly to the workforce shortages and access problems that we see today.
My amendment is practical and targeted at ending dental deserts, improving access to dental care and ensuring that NHS dentistry is once again available to the people who depend on it. The noble Lord, Lord Patel, and the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, have given clear examples of the different needs of coastal and rural communities and the importance of access to transport for access to services, which too often gets forgotten in these debates.
The amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, to which I have added my name, would ensure the publication of an important, regular report on the state of NHS dentistry and a debate in Parliament, which would keep a focus on this issue. There is so much going on in the health space that this can easily get lost, which in some ways has led to the situation we are in today.
We mentioned children in our debate. More than for any other reason, children attend A&E because of tooth decay. That is extraordinary. We can talk, and we have talked, about how we are tackling the issue—we have programmes teaching children how to brush their teeth properly—but what are we doing in nurseries and other early care settings? Only 10 years or so ago, my son was in nursery. That nursery had an NHS dentist who came in every six months and did check-ups with the children, and you got a note sent home. Why are we not looking at some of that preventive work? This report would allow the wider debate that we have started today, as well as discussion of some of the other important points and links to other health issues. I hope the Minister will respond positively and pick up the issue of that regular report.
Lord Mawson (CB)
My Lords, I support the amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Hunt. I will share a practical experience. In Tower Hamlets, a large proportion of the residents are Bengali and eat betel nut, which produces all the symptoms and serious health impacts that the noble Lord, Lord Kakkar, has well described. I have previously mentioned the street we rebuilt following some very difficult health circumstances. We ended up building a health centre, a school, 600 homes, and now a primary school, and we joined it all up with a multidisciplinary team. When you bring the headteacher, the GP, the pharmacist and the housing practitioners together, you start to learn things about the community in which you are based, and we began to discover this serious health implication among the Bengali community.
Because we had a very good working relationship with Queen Mary University, which is up the road and which became a partner in this development, there was an opportunity to bring a dental school, with a brilliant professor of dentistry, on to the street. We could then connect it to the pharmacy, the school and the science programme—which we have been running for 14 years with Professor Brian Cox—and create a whole joined-up situation that would not only improve the dental health of people but, if we connected it properly into the school, might well produce more dentists. It would mean that, instead of the health centre being overwhelmed by these issues, the dentists could start to deal with patients and the detail of all this. My point is that, if we began to think of neighbourhood health centres not as a box but as a street and a campus, and of the connections between these things, it would begin to throw up interesting innovations and solutions to issues that arise particularly in places such as Tower Hamlets, which are very much to do with dentistry.
I have to say that this was one of our health failures, because all that was coming together; everyone was in favour of it, and the professor of dental health was brilliant, but it sadly fell because of the politics going on in the medical school. I am illustrating it because, if we create a culture on the ground in neighbourhoods and build the relationships, these kinds of innovations around these very serious issues, which deal with the very serious medical conditions that the noble Lord, Lord Kakkar, rightly described, can start to happen.
Lord Evans of Rainow (Con)
My Lords, perhaps I may start by warmly welcoming the noble Baroness to the Dispatch Box. We wish her well.
This has been a valuable debate on an issue that affects millions of people across the country. While the amendments before us take different approaches, they are united by a common concern that access to NHS dentistry remains increasingly difficult to secure. I particularly wish to speak in support of the amendment in the name of my noble friend Lady Coffey. At its heart lies a simple but important principle: access to dentistry should not depend on where a person lives or what they can afford. Few would disagree that oral health is an integral part of overall health, yet for too many patients access to NHS dental services has become a postcode lottery.
The duty proposed by my noble friend would place equity at the centre of decision-making. That is a principle which this House has supported on many other occasions in many other areas of healthcare. It is surely no less important when it comes to dentistry.
The amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, and the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon, also raises an important issue. One frustration for Parliament and for the public is that discussions about NHS dentistry are too often conducted in the absence of clear, comprehensive and consistent information. Regular reporting on workforce pressures, access, inequalities and unmet need would provide a valuable evidence base against which future progress could be measured and Governments held to account.
The amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon, addresses perhaps the most visible manifestation of the current problem: so-called dental deserts. Finding an NHS dentist has become extraordinarily difficult, if not impossible, in many parts of the country. Today, three in five adults are not accessing NHS dentistry. That is not a marginal problem; it is a challenge affecting communities across the kingdom. We now have areas of the country where fewer than four in 10 adults have seen an NHS dentist in the past two years. That should concern us all. It speaks not merely of pressures within the service but to growing inequalities in access to care.
Patients are travelling significant distances for routine treatment; being forced into the private sector, despite financial pressures; or presenting at GP surgeries, walk-in centres and A&E departments because they have nowhere else to turn. These are symptoms of a system that, despite the dedication and professionalism of the dental workforce, is struggling to meet public demand.
Improving NHS dentistry requires more than warm words. Good oral health is not a luxury; it affects children’s development, educational attainment and well-being. It affects people’s ability to work, to communicate with confidence and to maintain their dignity. Increasingly, we understand its connection to wider physical health and quality of life. At a time when we are rightly focused on prevention, reducing health inequalities and delivering care closer to home, dentistry must be part of that conversation. We cannot continue to accept a situation in which access to NHS dental services depends so heavily on geography, workforce shortages or the ability to pay. These amendments offer thoughtful and constructive ways of advancing that object.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Care (Baroness Merron) (Lab)
My Lords, I am very pleased to respond to this group, following on from these Benches from my noble friend Lady Hyde, who I am delighted to be working with on this Bill. I am very glad that she made her debut on group 1 today. We look forward to hearing more.
I am in absolutely no doubt of the challenge when it comes to dental services and dentistry. I am also deeply conscious of the situation that we started from. I will refer to some of the points about improvements and the need for further improvements, but let me turn first predominantly to the amendments before us.
On Amendment 49 from the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, I understand the good intention behind this amendment but do not believe that it is necessary, because under Section 1 of the National Health Service Act 2006, the Secretary of State will continue to have a duty to promote a comprehensive health service in England and that includes NHS dental services.
In addition, Clause 4 strengthens the statutory framework by amending the Secretary of State’s existing duties so that they must have regard to the need to reduce inequalities in access to health services across England. As the noble Lord, Lord Patel of Bradford, rightly said, that includes coastal communities as well as others. The duty that I referred to provides a clear statutory basis for considering geographical and other inequalities in access. A dentistry-specific duty would therefore duplicate the deliberately broader framework that the Bill establishes.
I can reassure the noble Baronesses, Lady Coffey and Lady Pidgeon—because the comments that I am about to make also relate to Amendment 216 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon—that we are taking practical action to tackle dental deserts. I was grateful for the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Patel of Bradford, who made the point that the definition of a dental desert is rather more complex than just miles, or indeed numbers, and that is indeed the case. The practical actions that we are taking include introducing a package of reforms to address some of the most pressing issues that dentists and dental teams have been experiencing, and therefore the knock-on effect to patients. These reforms prioritise those with the greatest need and shift care away from clinically unnecessary check-ups.
On the matter of addressing dental deserts, we have, supported by some £11 million, brought in some 50 additional dental school places on top of the existing 809. It is interesting to note that the University of Porstmouth and the University of East Anglia are where these will be provided; we are going to train more dentists in the areas that need more dentists. As we know, throughout the medical professions, when you train in an area you are more likely to stay. I add that all NHS regions now have a dental school. We also have the golden hello recruitment incentive scheme, with payments to dentists of £20,000 to work for three years in areas that need them the most. As of July this year, 159 dentists had started working in the areas that needed their services the most.
Referring back to Amendment 216 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon, I make the point to a number of the comments made that since July 2024 we have sought to rebuild NHS dentistry while being in no doubt of the challenge. In 2025-26, just under 3 million additional NHS treatments were delivered compared with the previous year, and around half of those benefited children. I very much share the concerns that noble Lords have described. It is totally unacceptable that the primary reason for emergency care for children is their very poor dental health. Children’s access now exceeds pre-pandemic levels, more adults are being seen and more dentists practise in the NHS, if we compare it with 2019-20.
I absolutely agree with the noble Baronesses, Lady Finlay and Lady Pidgeon, and other noble Lords, about the key role of prevention. That is exactly why, as the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, said, we have brought in a toothbrushing scheme for young children, as well as fluoridation. We are seeking to tackle—if noble Lords will forgive the pun—the root causes. I cannot think of another word, but perhaps noble Lords will enjoy that anyway. It is important that we prevent as well as treat, for sure.
I turn to Amendment 213, tabled by noble friend Lord Hunt. We agree that transparency and accountability are essential to a properly functioning NHS dental system. However, the amendment risks duplicating existing arrangements. For example, the annual dental statistics help to identify problems and inform policy development, and I know that nobody present would wish to divert resources away from patient services. The whole focus of the Bill is on increasing Ministers’ accountability to Parliament, so I have no doubt of that happening.
I will pick up on some of the other points that were made, in more general terms. The noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, and my noble friend Lord Hunt spoke about the dental contract and expressed concerns about the focus on units of dental activity, which I understand. I agree that reforming the dental contract is a key lever, and that is why we are working with the British Dental Association and other representative bodies to do just that. In addition to that contract, we are looking at how we can better use technology and boost the number of NHS dentists, as well as all the other areas that I have spoken to.
The noble Lord, Lord Patel of Bradford, asked about funding. I can confirm that the dental budget is worth around £4 billion, net of patient charges. The Government want to ensure that the ring-fenced dental budget is spent on the patients who need it most, and we need to maximise treatments for taxpayers’ money. I am pleased to say that we reduced the NHS dentistry underspend, which was standing at £392 million in 2023-24, to £36 million in 2024-25. That will make a major change to the provision of dental services. On the question from the noble Lord, Lord Patel, about the dental framework being developed by the Chief Dental Officer, I will be pleased to write with more detail on that.
I will pick up a few points in response to the noble Lord, Lord Young; where I cannot do so at the moment, I will be pleased to write to him. As I have mentioned, 4 million urgent appointments were delivered in 2025-26; that is 8.4% more than in 2024-25, and more than in any previous year under the current contract. We have now required high street dentists to deliver a minimum amount of urgent treatment as part of their contract. On the point about fluoridation, which the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, also spoke to in terms of prevention, we are investing £136 million over five years to maintain existing schemes across England and fund the expansion to which the noble Lord referred across the north-east of England. Some 6 million people are already benefiting from fluoridated water, and this latest intervention is expected to reach an additional 1.6 million, to reduce tooth decay and inequalities in dental health.
The noble Lord, Lord Kakkar, talked about bringing together datasets to understand the impact of dentistry on broader health, which is a point I take. I will be pleased to look into that and write to him.
Lord Patel of Bradford (Non-Afl)
I thank the Minister very much for that detailed response. When she writes to noble Lords, can she specifically pick up the issue of capital funding? Lots of the places that I am looking at have a population with enough people to have complex problems, but not big enough to have infrastructure. We really struggle without some capital investment. As the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, said, we need some capital funds to set up some of these physical services to actually do the workforce training.
Baroness Merron (Lab)
Yes, I will be very pleased to include reference to that. I would probably use the word more broadly—the infrastructure that is necessary to support the dental activity—but I take the point and I will do my best to assist.
Baroness Coffey (Con)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for her comprehensive response. There is something in what she said about a dental team. Many noble Lords have talked about children. Dental therapists are unsung heroes and heroines who are perfectly qualified to undertake a lot of the work that has been mentioned today, particularly when dealing with children. The challenge is that too many dentists will not allow dental therapists to practise. I have asked them for reasons why, and there are certain things they cannot and are not allowed to do with NHS paperwork. Dentists also talk about liability, in terms of insurance.
We need to open this up much more widely. I encourage the Minister to speak to the Minister for Health Innovation, who I believe is responsible for dentistry, to see what more could be done. Too many children’s teeth, never mind older people’s, are just being ruined when they do not need to be. It does not need to be a dentist who goes into a nursery to look at these things; there are perfectly well-qualified people who can undertake that.
I will likely return to the issue of dentistry on Report, but, with that, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Baroness Coffey
“Promoting access to ambulance services equitablyIn the National Health Service Act 2006, after section 1C insert—“1CA Duty to promote access to ambulance services equitablyIn exercising functions in relation to the health service, the Secretary of State must have regard to the need to ensure provision of ambulance services across England accessible to all regardless of wealth or geography.””
Baroness Coffey (Con)
My Lords, we have got a Holy Trinity now. We have dealt with how we encourage people to get into and stay in work, we have talked about dentistry, and now we are going to talk about more things to do with urgent care.
This amendment is about promoting equitable access to ambulance services. I feel passionately about this: it was something I dedicated a lot of my time to as an MP, trying to improve access at local level. It was when I learned about how often, on a regional basis, we would see actual manipulation of where ambulances were placed in order to make sure targets were hit—but it did not mean that patients were served well.
There are a number of issues in regard to ambulances, and I pay tribute to many first responders. In the statistics, recorded nationally, a volunteer responder turning up is the same as having a paramedic arrive. In the East of England Ambulance Service, which had started to show improvement but is now really struggling —again—ambulances are quite regularly sent without any qualified paramedics in them.
I come back to the point that this situation can be very serious. Quite often, outside our major cities, for example in the east of England, if you have a stroke or a serious heart issue, you have to go to Cambridge for the best treatment. Stuff has happened along the way to try to make sure that you can stop en route, in places such as Ipswich and Norwich, in order to get something along the way. A stroke is something that causes the greatest harm, in terms of people having a good quality of life later. Of course, having a wide range of first responders across the country is a very useful way to help people who have had either a cardiac arrest or a heart attack, to keep them alive. But the difference in your quality of life depends on how quickly you get treatment when you have had a stroke; it is a real life changer.
One of the things I am conscious of is that we have many rural areas around the country. Something more needs to be done to help rural communities. It also happens to be the case—particularly thinking of coastal areas—that a lot of tourists rely on emergency services when they are on holiday. That is not taken into account in some of the funding measures, as far as I am aware.
I am pleased that we have seen an increase in the number of paramedics, but, reflecting on the point referred to earlier by the noble Baroness, Lady Hollins, on clinical staff in the NHS, it is paramedics who have the highest sickness rates. I think it is more than double —perhaps even treble—how often an average hospital doctor or consultant sadly ends up being off ill. It is not the Cinderella of the NHS, but it is certainly a part of the service that has been forced into mergers over the years, and there is huge reluctance among NHS leaders to break them apart in a way that would perhaps help patients. Indeed, we are effectively seeing many more mergers happening around England, which is going to be a real struggle, particularly for rural communities.
I am grateful to the Minister for sending the letter today about what will be happening. ICBs are taking on dentistry as part of their statutory duties, but there was no reference to what would be happening with ambulance services. I know it is common practice that one ICB tends to do the commissioning on behalf of all ICBs in that area, because they are currently constrained by the fact that they do not have any choice in where they get their ambulance service. I am not suggesting that we go for some free-market approach. We need a sensible, well-connected way of dealing with these emergencies. It would be useful to hear what the Secretary of State’s plans are for the next phase of NHS provision across the country.
I share the concerns, reflected in other amendments in this group, about people suffering corridor care. I look forward to trying to better understand the amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon, regarding 12-hour admissions to A&E. It has become terrible how patients are not being seen, especially when that can be a matter of life and death. I hope that we will have some further useful discussions on this important blue-light service and recognise the contributions made by paramedics and community first responders right across our country. I beg to move.
Lord Scriven (LD)
I know the noble Baroness likes to be absolutely correct. She said that the highest rate of NHS staff sickness was among ambulance paramedics. It is actually ambulance support staff, which does not include paramedics. I am sure she would like to correct the record.
Baroness Coffey (Con)
I am grateful to the noble Lord for doing that. That is not in the information that I have, but I completely accept what he has said. It is unusual in the NHS that the average number of sickness days lost to non-clinical staff is more than double that to clinical staff, but I completely understand the noble Lord’s point.
Lord Patel of Bradford (Non-Afl)
My Lords, Amendment 72, in my name, addresses a straightforward concern: patients being made to wait for assessment or treatment because of an administrative or financial rule when clinically appropriate care could be provided sooner. My amendment would prohibit minimum waiting times imposed across the NHS in England for administrative, financial or capacity-management reasons. It would apply to both commissioners and providers, including through contracts and activity plans. It would protect clinical decisions about when an assessment, investigation or treatment should take place. A patient may need to wait for a clinical reason, but they should not be made to wait because a commissioner has imposed a minimum waiting period to manage budgets or activity.
That is already happening. An investigation published by the British Medical Journal on 9 September found that nearly half of England’s integrated care boards had introduced some form of minimum waiting time. It reported minimum waits of 16 weeks for routine procedures in Shropshire, Telford and Wrekin, and West Yorkshire, and for cataract treatment in south-east London. Can the Minister confirm whether these policies remain in place and whether the Government consider them acceptable when clinically appropriate care can be provided sooner?
The situation is even starker for ADHD and autism assessments. For example, published information from West Yorkshire’s ICB confirms a minimum wait of two years from referral for assessments with independent providers. The ICB says that this is intended to make waiting times fairer and to manage financial pressures, but the central question remains: why require someone to wait two years if an appropriate assessment could be provided sooner? An assessment can help someone understand their difficulties and get appropriate support. A two-year delay can have consequences for their education, employment and family life.
The ICB allows urgent assessments where certain specified clinical criteria are met. Those urgent exceptions are important, but what happens when the criteria are so restrictive that they exclude patients whom clinicians believe are at serious risk? I present this point from a practical perspective. I heard only last week about a concern in another ICB area. Clinicians there identify patients whom they believe are at risk of serious harm, including self-harm and suicide, yet those patients appear to fall outside that ICB’s tightly drawn criteria for urgent assessment. When clinicians raised these concerns, the responses reported include directing patients to NHS 111 and suggesting that referrals could be returned to their GP if the provider is concerned about managing the clinical risks while they wait. Of course, NHS 111 and GPs have important roles in helping patients access urgent support, but that does not answer the clinicians’ concern that these patients need an earlier specialist assessment.
This concerns the restrictions on funded activity rather than a fixed minimum wait time, but it raises a serious question: are urgent criteria being drawn around the available budget rather than the clinical needs of the patient? Surely there must be a prompt clinical review and a clear, funded route to appropriate care for patients whose clinicians identify serious risk, even when they fall outside the ICB’s specified categories.
I recognise that commissioners face very difficult financial choices, but making patients wait when appropriate care is available does not remove their need for care. Their condition may worsen and they may need more help from other services while they wait. I have three concerns about policies that impose these minimum waits: harm to patients, fairness and transparency.
First, on harm to patients, someone waiting for a hip replacement, cataract surgery or diagnostic test may be living with pain, unable to work or drive, or losing their independence. Their life does not go on hold because a waiting time clock has started. If their condition worsens, they may need more help from their GP, social care or emergency services. Meanwhile, capacity that could have been used to treat them sooner may grow unused. How is that a sensible use of NHS resources? In responding to the BMJ investigation, the Royal College of Surgeons warned about deliberately delaying patients who are ready for treatment. The Royal College of General Practitioners also questioned blanket minimum waits while patients could be treated sooner.
Secondly, on fairness, access to care should depend on clinical need, yet a patient in one ICB area may be required to wait at least 16 weeks while someone with the same needs in a neighbouring ICB area faces no such rule. Surely that is the definition of a postcode lottery. What does “patient choice” mean if someone chooses an appropriate provider who could see them sooner but a commissioning rule prevents it?
Thirdly, there is transparency. In Written Answers to Dr Luke Evans MP on 22 June, the Government said there was
“no formal national policy supporting minimum waits”,
but they confirmed that the NHS standard contract allowed local commissioners to set what they called “activity planning assumptions”. Whatever the label we use, if a contractual rule stops a patient receiving care sooner, its effect must surely be open to scrutiny. Yet the Government also said that NHS England did not collect information on which ICBs impose minimum waits, which services were affected or their impact. How can the Government judge these policies without that information? Patients should know why they are waiting and be able to challenge a rule that unnecessarily delays their care.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff (CB)
My Lords, I shall address Amendments 219 and 229, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon. I have already had a brief discussion with her, because I would have liked to have signed Amendment 229, except for a bit of the wording. She is absolutely right that corridor care is one of the scandals of our time. In fact, it was on the news at lunchtime today, with patients being filmed in corridors still. We also still have social care problems arriving in emergency departments. These are people who really need to be looked after; they cannot just be sent out.
One thing about emergency departments is that people arrive, attend and then, after they are assessed, there is a decision about whether they are to be admitted. There is a clear line in the way that the figures are collected. That becomes important because roughly 25% of the people who attend are actually admitted. We have to be really careful that there is no gaming around these figures, which can happen by managers if targets are put in that become difficult to reach for one reason or another.
There are terribly long trolley waits at the moment. In each of the past three years, over half a million patients have been waiting on trolleys. As we touched on at Oral Questions yesterday, the flow through hospitals is a problem, with very high bed occupancies. We have far fewer beds in our NHS than the average across the EU—we have below half of that average. Also, the countries that have lower bed numbers often have other services in place. For example, in the Netherlands, the numbers of beds in hospitals are not that high but it has the discipline of nursing home medicine, with a large number of beds and staff trained to a very high level.
One problem that we face is the flow through hospitals —in, through and out of them. In simply addressing the front door, we are not addressing the problem properly, because there are a number of patients who are deemed to be medically fit for discharge but remain in hospital. That number is estimated at nearly 13,000 patients a day, which is huge. These patients are deemed to have been medically optimised but no longer need to remain in the hospital.
The design of our emergency departments does not help in relation to corridor care or other care. I had the privilege of spending some time in Groningen in the north of the Netherlands and was astounded at its emergency department, which was superbly laid out. There were two direct resus rooms from the ambulance bay, fully equipped so that they could be turned into emergency operating theatres for very major trauma, with CT scanners in them. They had moved from the open front door, which we have, to being able to move major trauma and other problems straight into much more appropriate environments than we have been providing.
I commend the Government for taking on the problem of modernisation, but I hope that we look at the whole issue of patient experience and patient flow and recognise that, unless we do something about our emergency departments, the more than 90% of staff who feel that they cannot cope in the longer term will be on their knees and we will have more problems going forward.
Baroness Pidgeon (LD)
My Amendment 219 addresses the deeply concerning and increasingly common practice of corridor care. No patient should be left receiving treatment, assessment or prolonged care in a corridor simply because there is nowhere else for them to go. A friend of mine only a couple of weekends ago showed me a picture of a relative in hospital, who was in a corridor. This is absolutely unacceptable. As we heard from the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, it was on the news again today. Corridor care undermines patient dignity, compromises privacy, increases clinical risk and places additional strain on hard-working NHS staff who are trying to deliver safe care in environments that were never designed for that purpose.
We all recognise the immense pressures our hospitals are facing, from rising demand to workforce shortages and delayed discharge, but corridor care must never become normalised, as I fear it has, as an acceptable feature of our health service. Dr Ian Higginson, president of the Royal College of Emergency Medicine, has described corridor care as
“dangerous, undignified, and a source of national shame”.
Survey data published by the royal college only on 20 July shows that 61% of clinical leads in England said that their trusts did not even capture corridor care accurately, with many saying that patients who were on chairs and in waiting rooms waiting for admission were not counted towards their corridor care figure.
There is significant variation in reporting between hospitals and emergency departments. Consultants are concerned about patients who wait on chairs in waiting rooms, off-the-clock assessment units and the repurposing of space as “non-corridor” places, where they put chairs so that patients can wait and not be counted. I have even been told of somebody being sat on a chair in a cupboard because that would not count towards corridor care figures. This is also not counting patients waiting in ambulances or on corridors on the way into departments. It is simply unacceptable. This amendment would help shine a light on the true scale of the problem and support genuine efforts to ensure that patients are treated in appropriate clinical settings with the dignity, safety and respect that every person deserves when they turn up to their hospital in their time of need. We need this to lead to the end of this practice.
My Amendment 229 seeks to address another visible symptom of the pressures that our National Health Service faces: the growing difficulty in securing timely admission from accident and emergency departments into appropriate hospital beds. When patients have been assessed and a clinical decision has been made that they require admission, prolonged waits in A&E not only are frustrating but can lead to poorer outcomes, increased risk to patient safety and greater distress for patients and their families. These delays also contribute to serious overcrowding in emergency departments, making it harder for clinicians to deliver care to all those who come through their doors. While we know that the causes are complex—bed capacity, workforce shortages, which we talked about earlier, and the difficulty of discharging medically fit patients into the community and social care settings, as we heard from the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay—we should be clear that long waits for admission are just not acceptable.
This amendment would provide greater transparency and accountability and help ensure that the health system focuses on reducing delays and delivering the safe, timely and dignified care that patients have every right to receive. Putting this right in the NHS constitution would focus efforts and make sure that we address this serious issue. We do not want patients avoiding A&E because they fear endless hours of waiting. We know that is happening; we hear about it. Sorting out admissions and ending corridor care would transform the patient experience and, most importantly, patient outcomes.
The amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Patel of Bradford, on prohibiting minimum waiting times is important. We discussed this in a group only last week. We need to see waiting times minimised and patients receive the diagnostics and treatment that they need in a timely manner—one that is led clinically rather than by budget rationing, which we see too often today. The amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, talks about ambulance services. I commend the recent work by the Public Services Committee, which looked at the response and reaction between ambulance services and emergency departments, but it only scratched the surface of that issue. A lot more could be done with that workforce and those teams to ensure that patients get to the right door for further clinical care. I look forward to the Minister’s response to this important group, as this is really on the minds of the public today.
Earl Howe (Con)
My Lords, I shall speak only briefly on this group of amendments, not because I am in any way lukewarm about their content—quite the opposite—but for the practical reason that, as a Committee, we are being urged to make faster progress, bearing in mind the number of debating hours allocated to us. Let me say how impressed I was by the speeches from the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay of Llandaff, and the noble Lord, Lord Patel of Bradford. I hope the Minister will take their very powerful points back to officials in the department. I also agree fully with all that the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon, said about the unacceptability of corridor care.
I will make a couple of points on my noble friend Lady Coffey’s amendment on equitably available ambulance services. This is a tremendously important issue. As she will remember, I had to grapple with it as a Health Minister, not least as regards services in her then constituency. It is sadly the case that the category 1 response target of seven minutes has not been met nationally since April 2021. The Government have made big investments in emergency response services since coming to office; that is excellent, but since July 2024 the dial on category 1 and category 2 response times has not moved appreciably, if at all. That is not meant as a criticism but simply as another indication of how difficult a challenge this is.
Baroness Merron (Lab)
My Lords, I am most grateful to noble Lords for their contributions. Indeed, we all share a determination to ensure that patients receive safe, timely care in the right place. I am grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Howe, for his brevity; I will also seek to focus on amendments, and I hope noble Lords will appreciate that the reason for that is so we can deal with the content of the Bill.
Amendment 50 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, raises the important issue of rural access to ambulance services. I confirm that ICBs already have a statutory duty to meet the needs of their local population and to have regard to the need to reduce health inequalities, with respect to both ability to access health services and outcomes. I can assure your Lordships’ Committee that the funding that ICBs receive for commissioning ambulance services is based on factors such as age and deprivation and is adjusted to reduce health inequalities. To the point on rural areas, this includes adjustments for longer emergency ambulance journeys. We have heard some statistics, but I confirm that the category 2 mean ambulance response time is, as of July of this year, three minutes and 35 seconds faster than in July 2024. That is not the end of the story; I am simply indicating progress that is being made. I recognise, as always, the challenge of the situation that we are dealing with.
On Amendment 229, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon, I certainly share her determination to reduce long waits in A&E. Trusts are already expected year on year to improve four-hour performance and to reduce waits of 12 hours or more from arrival. There is no complacency about what we have to do to improve performance, which is why the Secretary of State recently announced £140 million of investment in urgent and emergency care schemes across England, including urgent treatment centres, same-day emergency care, emergency department upgrades and additional ambulance capacity.
We are also taking action across the urgent and emergency care pathway to reduce excessive waits and to improve patient safety and flow through hospitals, which the noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, spoke to. I assure your Lordships’ Committee that this will continue following the abolition of NHS England. It is our view that a legal time limit in itself would not address the underlying pressures on capacity and patient flow that contribute to long waits, and establishing a new statutory scheme would risk distracting from the crucial work that is already under way.
On Amendment 219, also tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon, I could not agree more that corridor care must not—not even should not, but must not—be normalised. I am reiterating some of the points that I made in a recent Oral Question, which I believe was from the noble Baroness, on this very important point. Our priority is sustained action to address the causes by improving patient flow and discharge, expanding urgent care capacity and supporting the most challenged hospitals. We have introduced a consistent national definition and reporting arrangements, and we have improved transparency and enabled support to be focused where it is most needed.
The Secretary of State has also asked NHS England to bring forward urgent plans aimed at eliminating corridor care for children. I can say that one in six trusts consistently reported no corridor care across their emergency departments or the wider hospital over the summer. I particularly make the point about the summer because of the extreme pressure due to the weather—not something we usually say, but we are increasingly seeing it. The pressures were immense, and that was their report to us.
The noble Baroness, Lady Finlay, made the strongest case for exactly what we are doing with the neighbourhood health service, which is about moving the focus from hospital to community. I spoke earlier this week in the Chamber about the movement of savings accruing from timely discharge that can be directed to neighbourhood health. We are trialling that, because it is a very clear and practical way to make the move that the noble Baroness rightly identifies.
Baroness Pidgeon (LD)
My Lords, may I tease something out that the Minister was saying about corridor care? She quickly moved on to another thing, and I wanted to come back in.
Yes, this is similar to a discussion we had only last week or the week before in answer to a Question I had tabled, but two-thirds of medics working in emergency departments are saying that their trusts are not accurately reporting the data on corridor care. The Minister keeps saying that we have this new definition or whatever; it was decades ago that I worked in the NHS, but we had a way to make sure that people were not counted as being on a trolley: you took the wheels off and it became a bed. Trusts are very creative at finding ways around to meet their definitions. If two-thirds of those surveyed by the Royal College of Emergency Medicine are reporting that their trusts are not accurately calculating this, what are the Government doing to try to get under the data, to make sure that the Minister and the department are getting accurate data to be able to deal with this serious problem?
Baroness Merron (Lab)
I feel quite sure that the noble Baroness herself never did such a thing.
Baroness Merron (Lab)
I take very seriously the point that the noble Baroness made. I am sure it is already being looked into, but I will personally make sure that that is the case.
On corridor care and children, one example of the practical action taken is our recent announcement that the NHS is rolling out a standardised system to spot when a child’s health is deteriorating, so that early warning signs are caught earlier and there is faster action. The paediatric early warning system will be introduced in all emergency departments by the end of 2027-28, with an ambition to also roll this out in ambulance and community settings in the future. This is broader than just corridor care, but I know that that is a particular concern, as I said, when it comes to children. I cannot confirm often enough that we remain committed to fully eliminating corridor care before the end of this Parliament.
Finally, on Amendment 72, in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Patel of Bradford, I can give the reassurance that there is no national policy supporting blanket minimum waits. Indeed, patient safety always comes first. If a commissioner puts capacity measures in place, urgent referrals must be excluded, minimum waits must not be set above 18 weeks and providers must continue to triage patients according to clinical priority.
At the start of the year, it is important and expected that commissioners plan to balance service delivery with their yearly budgets while prioritising patient safety and clinical need. I remind your Lordships’ House that it is due to our approach to financial planning that the NHS stayed in line with its budget in 2025-26 while also cutting waiting lists by over 250,000 between July 2024 and August 2026. Removing the use of tools to support planning could drive unplanned activity and overspending, which would of course undesirably divert resources from other patients.
On the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Patel, about autism and ADHD assessment, expectations have already been set out for ICBs and providers to reduce those long waits and to improve experience, quality and productivity in ADHD services over the next three years. We are moving to a needs-led support model that means earlier access to information and support and appropriate interventions that are individually based, without and before a diagnosis.
On the question about ICBs imposing minimum waits and whether we will publish which ICBs are doing this, there are no plans to publish this information. The data is held locally and that is right, because these are decisions for local areas. To restate what I said before, commissioning decisions are for ICBs to make.
Lord Scriven (LD)
The Minister just made a very important point. Can she clarify? Is she saying that there is a requirement for ICBs to statutorily report that they have implemented a minimum wait standard, or not?
Baroness Merron (Lab)
The question from Lord Patel was about whether there were plans to publish this information, and I was explaining that there are no plans and the reasons why.
Lord Patel of Bradford (Non-Afl)
Going back to the analogy of taking the wheels off the beds, it feels as if ICBs have certain budgets they want to spend on certain things and they are creating criteria that exclude vulnerable people. This is really important. All I am asking is, are the Government not looking at the more than 50% of ICBs that have put in minimum waiting times without assessments? If they are not assessing that information or looking at the data, how do they know what ICBs are up to? It is not about publishing it—okay, I suggested that we should publish it; it is about examining what these ICBs are doing and what the potential dangers are. I heard the conversation that said, “These are our criteria”. While our clinicians are saying that these people are at risk of suicide, they are saying, “These are our criteria”.
Baroness Merron (Lab)
I am glad that the noble Lord understands the reason why the Government are not seeking to publish, which was the question I was being asked about. For me, this is a question about the accountability of ICBs, currently held accountable by NHS England. But the whole purpose of the Bill is to improve the quality of accountability after the abolition of NHS England.
Lord Patel of Bradford (Non-Afl)
I just have one last point, and I am conscious that people have said that we do not want to take this too far. Will the Minister reflect on the issue and the principle that somebody who requires treatment or assessment should not have to wait for purely financial or administrative reasons, even though there is a clinical need?
Baroness Merron (Lab)
I have already made reference to what the priorities are: need and patient safety. I assure the noble Lord that I reflect on everything noble Lords say, and I certainly believe that I have already given that assurance.
Baroness Coffey (Con)
My Lords, this group of amendments has been informative, as have noble Lords’ contributions. I think that the noble Lord, Lord Patel of Bradford, may be referring to situations where a minimum is being deployed for people who have expressed their view that they would like to use an independent provider to tackle the issues, and I think that something is not quite right there. But we also have to be realistic. NHS England and all the trusts have to live within their means and not every area can be bailed out, as continues to happen at the Nottingham University Hospitals Trust and the Liverpool University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, which is in the recently published figures.
Obviously, whether it is about an ambulance or going to an urgent treatment centre or SDEC, I am conscious that the philosophy in the NHS up until fairly recently was that it was very proud that it had far fewer beds per person on average compared to other parts of Europe, on the basis that people would often get their operation, be dealt with and go home safely that same day. Thus, the thinking was that not quite so many beds were needed.
I welcome the reference to Sir Chris Whitty’s report, particularly in the context of rural communities. But without further ado, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Baroness Hayman
“Duties as to climate change etcIn the National Health Service Act 2006, after section 1CC (inserted by section 6 of this Act) insert—“1CD Duties as to climate change etc(1) In exercising functions in relation to the health service, the Secretary of State must have regard to the need to—(a) contribute towards compliance with—(i) section 1 of the Climate Change Act 2008 (UK net zero emissions target), and(ii) section 5 of the Environment Act 2021 (environmental targets: effects), and(b) adapt to any current or predicted impacts of climate change identified in the most recent report under section 56 of the Climate Change Act 2008.(2) The Secretary of State may publish guidance about the discharge of— (a) the duty imposed on the Secretary of State by subsection (1) of this section;(b) the duty imposed on integrated care boards by section 14Z44 (duties as to climate change etc);(c) the duty imposed on NHS trusts by section 26B (duties in relation to climate change etc);(d) the duty imposed on NHS foundation trusts by section 63B (duties in relation to climate change etc).(3) In discharging their duty under section 14Z44, integrated care boards must have regard to guidance published under subsection (2). (4) In discharging the duty under subsection (1), the Secretary of State must have regard to guidance published under subsection (2).””
Baroness Hayman (CB)
My Lords, I am grateful for the support for my Amendment 52 from the noble Baronesses, Lady Sheehan and Lady Ritchie of Downpatrick, and the noble Lord, Lord Crisp. I shall listen with interest to the debate on, and particularly the Minister’s response to, Amendment 248, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, which is a very practical way forward.
I did not take part in Second Reading on the Bill. Actually, I had a self-denying ordinance. I decided, having had my first involvement with the NHS in 1980, having seen so many reorganisations and, I am afraid, having become a little jaundiced about the effectiveness of those reorganisations in transforming patient care rather than changing administrative structures, that I would not say anything. My mother always said that if you cannot say something nice, do not say anything at all. However, here I am, and I am here because of the recent history of legislation on the NHS, in particular, the NHS Health and Care Act 2022.
I was involved in the debate on issues relating to climate in that Bill. After cross-party pressure on the issue, the Conservative Government of the time tabled amendments which became part of the Act, and which are mirrored in Amendment 52 in my name today. They were described thus by the then Minister, the noble Baroness, Lady Penn:
“They place a duty on NHS trusts, foundation trusts, ICBs and NHS England to have regard to the Government’s key ambitions on climate change and the natural environment in everything they do. This could mean preparing thousands of NHS buildings to adapt to climate impacts, protecting and enhancing biodiversity across 25 million square metres of trust estate, or decarbonising the millions of kilowatts of energy used by trusts every year”.—[Official Report, 1/3/22; col. 729.]
That, of course, saves money for the trusts involved. The amendments were warmly welcomed by the then Opposition, with the noble Baroness, Lady Wheeler, saying:
“I thank the Minister and welcome these government amendments in response to the key concerns raised in Committee about the crucial importance of including the NHS’s duties on climate change and working towards net-zero emissions in the Bill”.—[Official Report, 1/3/22; col. 733.]
My amendments, which mirror those amendments, are trying to maintain the status quo. They are essentially Conservative in the sense that it was a Conservative Government who introduced them.
Therefore, I ask the Minister to help me understand why, when NHS England’s functions transfer to the Secretary of State along with responsibilities to consider the impacts of climate change on our health services and public health and the significant role the NHS has to play in helping the UK to meet its national climate and environmental targets and to provide leadership—we saw that at COP 28 in Glasgow, with other countries’ health services actually responding—the Bill before us omits the NHSE’s statutory duty to publish guidance on what it regards as the best way for ICBs and the organisation itself to meet those duties and how it is fulfilling them, along with an established framework for reporting details of progress on reducing emissions in its annual report and accounts. There is no in-kind replacement for these requirements on the Health Secretary, meaning that without legislative change and amendments of this sort, there will be no obligation on DHSC to continue driving progress, specifically on the health service’s carbon emissions reduction work.
Ministers may say that they will have powers to issue fresh guidance if they choose to, but whether it is issued and how robust its contents are will be contingent on the priorities of the Government of the day, and we have an example before us of how those can change. That outcome does not bring the same level of certainty or direction that the NHS needs to maintain regular accountability and long-term national momentum towards its targets. I hope that the Government will not try to argue that, because the Climate Change Act 2008 applies to all government departments, this amendment is unnecessary. It is clear that the powers that were put in the 2022 Act are much more specific to the NHS and the health system and essentially provide accountability and transparency. The NHS itself says that the duties supported the health service’s own ambition to become the world’s first health system to embed net zero in legislation. The 2022 Act requires commissioners and providers of NHS services specifically to address the UK net-zero emissions target and environmental targets and to adapt to any current or predicted impacts of climate change identified within the Climate Change Act 2008. We saw quite a few of those this summer and quite a few of the effects on the health service.
The Bill before us does not require the Health Secretary, when making decisions about the NHS, to consider how the organisation is contributing to carbon targets, to regularly report on its performance or to prepare it for the climate risks it faces. That is what we risk losing if we do not amend the Bill. I know the Government are trying to clear provisions and responsibilities out of the way and do not want to put extra bureaucratic requirements on the NHS, but my amendment recognises this. Because it is already in the 2022 Act, it does not widen the requirements in any way. It is simply trying to restore the status of the existing duties. The need to co-ordinate and steer responses to climate change and nature loss at the national level ought not to be treated as unnecessary paperwork. These duties have been quietly working as intended in the face of rising climate challenges. NHSE appears to have been getting on with them and setting emissions reductions targets that now have a statutory basis. It reports that direct emissions were reduced by 14% in the years 2020-25 and that the NHS is on track to meet its 2032 and 2040 goals.
Within the last four years, the evidence points to climate change increasingly becoming a major challenge for health and health services. The Parliamentarians’ Guide to Health and Climate Change, developed by Peers for the Planet—in which I declare a past interest—and the Wellcome Trust is insightful reading and shows why climate change is already a UK public health issue. A number of organisations, such as the Wellcome Trust and the UK Health Alliance on Climate Change, have expressed concerns that failing to replace these obligations once NHSE functions are transferred to the Secretary of State will mean that there is no obligation for Ministers to report annually on progress towards NHS net-zero commitments, to publish sustainability guidance or to account to Parliament for this work. This will leave future transparency and oversight reliant to an unacceptably large degree on ministerial discretion, and it will undermine co-ordination of national objectives. I hope the Minister will be able to tell us how, if these duties for the DHSC are not replaced, we can ensure that our national health services have appropriate regard to the challenges of climate change. I beg to move.
Baroness Boycott (CB)
I will speak to Amendment 248, but first I want to say that that was a terrific introduction by the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, who is such a long-term, amazing campaigner for climate change. I would be horrifically surprised if the Minister does not reply completely in the affirmative towards this amendment, because, especially following the summer we have had, I do not see how anyone could continue to have their head in the sand about this risk. Climate change is not a hypothetical threat. There were 2,877 health-related deaths in May and June alone in the heatwaves—and this is not going to get better. This is not a one-off thing. In the climate emergency film there is a memorable line which says, “This is the best weather you are going to get in your lifetime”. That is truly scary. It may not happen next year, but it sure as hell will happen within the next two or three years.
The effects of this heat are not spread evenly over the population. It affects vulnerable people, children, the elderly, people living with chronic conditions, those in poor-quality housing and pregnant women. The noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, mentioned our work with the Wellcome Trust. I am vice-chair of Peers for the Planet. We have examined the effects of heat on pregnancy and maternal health, and it is not about being somewhere super-hot, which is what I have always thought. It is about being somewhere where your normal temperature condition changes. You are just as vulnerable if you are in Bristol as if you are in a field in southern India. It is about temperature change rather than extremes of temperature. It is important that we understand that, because that is going to hurt us. The climate and environmental impacts are also adding strain, as we have heard, to a service under pressure. The NHS said that this summer’s heatwaves piled pressure on its services and the NHS showed that A&E bore the brunt. We have just heard the amendments from the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, and the other amendments about the emergency services. This is just going to make it worse.
Heat-related A&E attendances already account for 6% of average daily total attendances across the UK on extreme heat days, and the impact is estimated to cost £538 million a year. This cost could rise by 144% by the 2030s. That is almost tomorrow, really, when you come to thinking about putting a new building together. It is welcome that the NHS trusts will retain their current “have regards” to climate change, but we really need to do more. We are not ramping up enough. The climate itself is not standing still. The Climate Change Committee warned that our health service remains chronically underprepared to deal with the risks, and there remains a lack of resilience for the physical NHS estate to cope with extreme weather.
Lord Crisp (CB)
My Lords, I am delighted to have put my name to both amendments, and to have heard them argued for so powerfully and cogently by my noble friends Lady Hayman and Lady Boycott. I want to emphasise one or two points, and add one slightly new point, because so much has been covered very quickly.
It seem odd that, in this year of all years, we decide to get rid of a power that used to be there, to reduce the emphasis on climate change and not to make it clear that the duties of NHS England need to be transferred in their detail. This was the point that my noble friend Lady Hayman was making. It is not just the general point that the Secretary of State has a responsibility as part of government policy to ensure that climate change is tackled; the detail of it needs to be there. Requiring NHS institutions to create and publish detailed resilience plans—the sort of plans that you can recognise in practical detail—would not only be useful for them but, frankly, give the public confidence, because there is a public confidence issue here.
I will not emphasise the Wellcome report on climate change. I hope that noble Lords and the Minister have had a chance to look at a report that is specifically focused on climate change and health. As I recall—sorry, this sounds like an advert—it has nine chapters that detail the impact from the latest research that is available globally. It is a powerful report; I declare an interest.
The NHS is interesting in this regard, because the NHS is both affected by climate change and a cause of it, and between them these two amendments deal with that. When I was chief executive of the NHS, there was some extraordinary figure that something like 3% or 5% of traffic in London was caused by the NHS and by people going back and forth to appointments. There is a lot on that side in terms of the impact on the climate from what the NHS does. A lot has been done in the last 20 years, but there is more to do.
The second amendment, proposed by my noble friend Lady Boycott, is about helping the NHS to be resilient. This is the big point that I want to emphasise. It was in my noble friend’s speech, but I would like to make it even clearer: many people in your Lordships’ Chamber have been involved with the NHS, and I guess we all know that everything in the NHS is a priority to someone. That is why it is so difficult to deal with, and one has to think of it in that way—but there are some overarching priorities. Frankly, this is an overarching priority. It is not about a discrete issue; it is about something that is going to affect all the services we have talked about earlier today, and other services as well. I hope that the Government are going to give this a high priority in their future thinking. I suspect that the public expect them to do so, and one can only imagine the consequences if the NHS does not get this right. I hope the Minister will accept these amendments. As my noble friend Lady Boycott said, the case is compelling and we are looking for an affirmative.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to take part on this group and to utterly applaud the three speeches we have already heard. I have not signed any of these amendments, because I wanted to leave space for others. Speaking as an old newspaper editor, “Green signs amendment about climate and environment” is a bit like “Dog bites man”, so I wanted to ensure that we had the maximum impact from other signatures. We have already heard the case made powerfully for this, but I want to make a couple of additional points and to follow on from what the noble Lord, Lord Crisp, said about priorities.
I have encountered many individuals in the NHS who are doing spectacular work in reducing the NHS’s carbon emissions. The Minister is not currently in her place, but I will say to another Minister that I encourage her to visit County Durham and Darlington NHS Foundation Trust, where tremendous work is being done, particularly on reducing the impact of acute care. Sometimes with acute care there is a feeling that we have to do the emergency stuff and we cannot do anything here. Actually, what we have seen is that in looking at where the use of intravenous drugs can be reduced and tablets used instead, clinical outcomes are improved and the amount of plastic use is significantly reduced. When you really start to look at what you are doing and how you can do it better, you can improve both clinical and environmental outcomes. That is just one example that I happen to know about.
It is important that the people who are doing this know that they have support from the centre and that this is an NHS priority, because they are putting time, energy and attention into this. Unless we see support from the centre by saying that this is a priority, it is hard for them to get the resources and support they need to make change happen. We know that any large organisation has a large sense of inertia, and delivering change needs support right through the organisation. As the noble Lord, Lord Crisp, said, the climate emergency is a health emergency as well, and there are so many ways in which these two factors interact.
On the amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, looking at resilience to climate and environmental degradation risks, I want to cross-reference it to the joint intelligence chiefs’ report on the impact of environmental degradation on our food security. Are we thinking about the food security of the NHS? We have to be able to feed the patients, but there is also a great deal of feeding of staff that has to happen in the NHS. How much have NHS institutions looked at how secure their food supply is? That is something that the joint intelligence chiefs, not known as radical green activists, have said is really an issue. I note in passing that we still have not seen the publication of that full report, which is very disappointing.
There is another issue that I think everyone is very aware of after this summer. I note that my honourable friend in the other place, Hannah Spencer, has a Private Member’s Bill about working conditions and having a maximum working temperature, which, whatever that might be, has been exceeded in many of our NHS institutions over the past summer. We have seen staff collapsing as a result of the heat in their workspace. That has to be considered unacceptable, but what is it doing to patients if staff are collapsing from heat?
Baroness Coffey (Con)
My Lords, this is another interesting group. I want to follow on from the initial amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman. I have more of an interest in thinking of the Environment Act and the targets there and reducing waste. This is a story about how much single-use plastic is used in the NHS.
I spent a month in hospital a few years ago and, for me to have a shower every day, a nurse used to get a bin bag or two and then strap them around my arm, basically because I could not get water on a particular cannula. I was a bit surprised by that, because you could just buy from Amazon a whole bunch of sleeves that can be dried and reused. I am sure there is some clinical reason that they could cite—I was struggling to find out why—just because I was in hospital. I did exactly what I have just mentioned when I went into recuperation at home. Instead of just thinking about straws or plastic cups, the NHS has a real opportunity to do a lot more thinking about what it uses, what needs to be thrown away and what could go back to somewhere else. I am not suggesting that people reuse syringes and the like, but the NHS could think more carefully, instead of this single-use culture.
Building on that, the amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, is also highly relevant. I am very conscious that we did not make much progress in getting hospitals built, sadly. Some of this was, frankly, due to an argument going on between local hospitals, the NHS, the Treasury and so on about what was going to be built. The purpose of moving to a modular basis of building is to have something that is scalable and that should be a lot more resilient in the future. The reason I mention that is that we still have the challenge of hospitals that have a RAAC risk and the unfortunate delay in their construction being replaced. I think there are five around the country—it so happens that three of them are in East Anglia—that will not now be happening until, I think, 2033.
One of the simpler things that we can learn from the continent, where we have seen extreme weather—indeed, we have been experiencing it more regularly ourselves—is design, thinking about heat, as has been mentioned. Indeed, that month I spent in hospital happened to be during a particularly hot summer, and I bought my own fan so I could try to keep cool. It was regularly removed because it had not gone through the electricity checking system and therefore obviously had a dodgy plug that was going to blow up the entire hospital. There are areas like that where intelligent design, thinking through not only the use of materials but the design of hospitals in future, is going to be vital.
I appreciate that this is not just about hospitals. Quite rightly, noble Lords have referred to what is happening in terms of quality of housing. This Bill can play a role in trying to get embedded, right across the country in our NHS settings but also at home, that real change and transition. Whether it is about having more shutters, making that much easier to operate and, if you have them at scale, much cheaper to deploy, or whether it is about thinking carefully about design and whether every NHS building has to be BREEAM Excellent —my personal view is the answer to that is no—it would certainly reduce a lot of cost. By and large, BREEAM Excellent tends to prefer air conditioning to aspects of simpler design. I am very pro air conditioning, but that does not mean it is needed quite everywhere.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
To follow on from the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, we should acknowledge that the NHS has done an awful lot in its environmental and climate change policies, and we should pay tribute to the people who have led that. One of their problems is that some proposals—maybe to do with heating or lighting—that will not only reduce carbon usage but reduce costs long term need some up-front investment, but we still do not seem to have found a way to allow for the NHS to borrow against a fund for it to be repaid over the years ahead. I hope that we might think about this, particularly in relation to sustainability and climate change.
I was looking at advice issued by the CQC in the light of the 2022 legislation that the noble Baroness quoted from. It says:
“Trusts and ICBs meet this new duty”—
that was placed in the 2022 Act—
“through the delivery of their localised Green Plans. Every trust and ICB in the country now has a board-level lead for net zero and sustainability”.
Perhaps my noble friend the Minister might want to write to me about whether, despite the changes in legislation, that responsibility still lies with local NHS services. Will the CQC guidance still stand post the passage of the Bill?
Baroness Pidgeon (LD)
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baronesses, Lady Hayman and Lady Boycott, and all noble Lords who have put their names to these amendments, including my noble friend Lady Sheehan.
The central question is straightforward: as the Bill proposes changes to the organisation of the health service, how do we ensure that its responsibilities for climate change, environmental protection and—from all that—patient safety are strengthened rather than simply diminished and reduced?
We absolutely support Amendment 52. As the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, has clearly set out, in 2022 the House established climate and environmental duties for NHS England integrated care boards and trusts but not for the Secretary of State. As functions move into the department, responsibilities for this must not disappear. The amendment is modest; it talks about “have regard” to the duty. It would not prevent the Minister balancing competing priorities but would make sure climate change was absolutely on the agenda.
Can the Minister explain who will report progress to Parliament once NHS England’s annual reporting responsibilities are lost? How will Parliament be able to scrutinise this in future? Just because there is an organisational change—and we see that a lot in the NHS—it should not then lead to a huge accountability gap and a potential reduction in work in this area.
We also support Amendment 248 and its requirement for each NHS trust and foundation trust to publish an assessment of climate risks to its premises, workforce and services, together with plans to address them. This is a practical and proportionate requirement; we should not wait until wards are overheating or hospitals flood before asking whether there was a plan and doing something about it. Adaptation is about patient safety, as we have heard, and, given the extreme weather that we are now living through, it is essential. It is about resilience, as the noble Lord, Lord Crisp, said.
The final point made by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, was important: this is about investing to save in terms of tackling sustainability issues. That is spot on. Years ago, there was an “invest to save” fund. We need to look at that if we are going to be able to make savings in the future to invest in the capital works that are needed. I hope the Minister will be able to respond positively to this group.
Earl Howe (Con)
My Lords, again, if the Committee will forgive me, I will speak only briefly. I start by expressing my support for the remarks made by the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, in speaking to her Amendment 52. It seems impossible to argue that the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care should be exempt from a duty to be mindful of the climate change agenda in everything they do, especially as we remember that the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care presides over an organisation with a very large carbon footprint. It was very much with that in view that Section 9 of the Health and Care Act 2022 included duties on NHS England to have regard, in the exercise of its functions, to the Climate Change Act 2008. Therefore, the noble Baroness was entirely right that the duties that apply currently to NHS England in this area should now logically apply to the Secretary of State.
Having said that, I would be surprised if the Minister did not respond by saying that the first part of Amendment 52 is unnecessary, for the very dull reason that Section 15 of the Climate Change Act 2008 already places a duty on “the Secretary of State”, in exercising his or her functions, to have regard to
“the need for UK domestic action on climate change”;
the section spells out what that means in practice. It has long been drummed into me that an Act of Parliament conferring duties on “the Secretary of State” should be read in law as applying to any Secretary of State. That is a very legalistic point, and I do not think that it constitutes a sufficient reason for the Minister to resist this amendment, for all the reasons set out so well by the noble Lord, Lord Crisp.
Personally, I feel the need for something declaratory and specific in this area. The duty to issue detailed guidance seems a very definite omission from the Bill. As we heard the Minister say in response to the previous group of amendments, climate change is becoming a highly relevant factor for ICBs and trusts in the planning of service delivery. As the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott, was right to emphasise, it is equally relevant in the public health context and to the design of buildings, including hospitals. With all that in mind, I hope that the Minister will feel able to give the noble Baroness’s amendment a positive response.
Baroness Hyde of Bemerton (Lab)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who took part in the debate on this important group of amendments. I will address Amendments 52 and 248 together.
I turn first to Amendment 52, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman. The Government remain committed to tackling climate change and ensuring that the NHS continues to play its part. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Crisp, that this is an overarching priority. However, we do not believe that this amendment is necessary. I am indeed going to say that the climate change target and environmental targets referred to in the amendment already apply to the Secretary of State through the Climate Change Act and the Environment Act. The 10-year health plan was clear that we will continue to support the NHS’s climate ambitions. The reforms in this Bill do not remove or weaken that commitment.
The amendment also provides for guidance on the discharge of climate duties. However, the Bill already enables the Secretary of State to issue such guidance to integrated care boards, alongside transferring NHS England’s existing guidance powers for NHS trusts and foundation trusts to the Secretary of State. Importantly, integrated care boards, NHS trusts and foundation trusts will retain their existing statutory climate duties. We will continue to support the aims of the NHS’s climate ambitions in a way that improves delivery of care, returns savings to front-line services and drives wider economic growth. I say to the noble Baronesses, Lady Coffey and Lady Bennett, that I look forward to debating in full the use of single-use plastics in the NHS in the group of amendments on medicines and medical devices beginning with Amendment 111, but I will not pre-empt a fulsome discussion of that by delving into that content here, so we can all look forward to that.
I turn to Amendment 248, in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Boycott. NHS trusts and foundation trusts have to consider the need to adapt to the current and predicted impacts of climate change. All trusts and foundation trusts are already required to have green plans in place. In reply to the noble Baroness’s point about how we will ensure that this happens, following the abolition of NHS England, the Secretary of State will issue guidance to support the system in discharging their duties, building on the existing Green Plan Guidance published by NHS England. There are statutory guidance-making powers in the NHS Act 2006 for ICBs, trusts and foundation trusts, under which the Secretary of State expects to issue guidance to support that system in discharging its duties.
As many noble Lords raised, including the noble Baroness, Lady Hayman, we know that the impacts of climate change are already being felt across the NHS, including disruption from heat in particular, flooding and other types of extreme weather. That is why the 10-year capital plan committed to renew that focus on climate resilience. We have strengthened adaptation planning with green plans to prepare for severe weather events and improve climate resilience of local sites and services, and plan to conduct an adverse weather emergency response exercise in every NHS region by 2030, so strengthening that whole system preparedness for extreme heat through UKHSA-led planning, co-ordinated alerts and mandatory local response arrangements across the NHS.
All trusts are required to have adverse weather plans to ensure service continuity during major events, such as heatwaves. Beyond planning for acute incidents, trusts also undertake climate change risk assessments to identify and reduce overheating risks and their potential impacts. There is already, therefore, a clear framework for trusts to plan and respond to climate risks. I humbly suggest that the Government do not have their head in the sand but that our focus should be on delivering against these existing duties and plans. The 10-year health plan also committed to supporting the NHS’s existing net-zero targets and climate objectives as set out in Delivering a “Net Zero” National Health Service, published in 2020. I am sure noble Lords are aware that, since the publication of that strategy, NHS carbon footprint emissions have indeed fallen by 17%.
To address the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, I have covered some of the local duties points. The CQC guidance will remain, but I will write in full laying that out. On the point from the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon, about how this will be reported to Parliament, information on annual NHS emissions will continue to be published in the DHSC’s annual report and accounts, which are also laid before Parliament annually. That will ensure that Parliament continues to receive that regular information on the NHS’s progress towards those environmental objectives. I hope that this reassures noble Lords that the Government recognise the importance and, as many noble Lords have raised, ongoing salience of this issue.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
I think this was probably before the noble Baroness came into the House, so I will not ask her whether she remembers the Financial Services and Markets Bill, on which we had a very similar debate. The Government eventually made a concession that was introduced directly into the Bill and did not say that we had to rely on the overarching Environment Act, et cetera. Will she have a look at the debate on the Financial Services and Market Bill, in particular Third Reading, when the Government explained why they had given way on that Bill?
Baroness Hyde of Bemerton (Lab)
I believe I was in the House; it was after the King’s Speech. I will absolutely go away and review that debate and take it back.
Baroness Coffey (Con)
I have just looked at the other amendments and can find “plastic” referred to only in terms of infant feeding material, so I just wanted to get a sense of which amendment we are talking about. I did not quite catch which one the Minister referred to.
Baroness Hyde of Bemerton (Lab)
There is a group of amendments beginning with Amendment 111, which includes an amendment with a reference to single-use plastic. It is grouped in the medicines and medical devices section. I believe it was de-grouped; it was originally in this group and now is in the group beginning with Amendment 111. I know nothing will stop noble Lords discussing the things they want to in that group, irrespective of the content of the amendments.
Baroness Hayman (CB)
My Lords, I am extremely grateful to everyone who has taken part in the debate, perhaps particularly to the noble Baroness, Lady Coffey, because she quite rightly pointed out that the amendment deals with Environment Act duties as well as the climate change ones, and that is extremely important.
I was very grateful for the support, generally for—I think it was the noble Earl, Lord Howe, who said it—the declaratory nature of what is needed in this Bill. There is a very powerful case to say that there are gaps between the previous legislation and what we have now. There will be some very interesting governance arrangements within the NHS; we have been talking about new special health authorities, for example. There are lots of different ways in which we have to make sure that we are secure in having an overarching commitment.
On the essentially legalistic position which I think the Government are taking on this, the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, is quite right to cite the Financial Services and Markets Bill. The Chancellor did not say then, “The Chancellor has a responsibility under the Climate Change Act, so you cannot put anything in at all”. The Minister was here for that Bill, but she was not here for a couple of other examples I could put forward to her. It would be very helpful if Ministers were willing to continue to discuss how we can bring this to a resolution, because I am encouraged by the amount of support for the current amendment around the Committee. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Tarassenko
“Duty as to UK suppliers and sovereign capabilityIn the National Health Service Act 2006, after section 1CC (inserted by section 6 of this Act) insert—“1CD Duty as to UK suppliers and sovereign capability(1) The Secretary of State must take into account the matters mentioned in subsection (2)—(a) in setting the award criteria for a relevant contract under section 23 of the Procurement Act 2023, so far as those matters relate to the subject matter of the contract, and(b) in having regard, under section 12(1)(a) of that Act, to the importance of delivering value for money in connection with the award of a relevant contract.(2) The matters are—(a) the extent to which the data, control and support of the system concerned will remain within the jurisdiction of the United Kingdom,(b) the risks to the security and resilience of the health service arising from any respect in which they will not, including the risk that access to NHS patient data could be compelled under the law of a country or territory outside the United Kingdom, and(c) so far as consistent with the international obligations of the United Kingdom, the contribution of the contract to developing and maintaining capability within the United Kingdom to design, deliver and support technology and information systems which handle NHS patient data.(3) Subsections (4) and (5) apply to a material relevant contract under which—(a) the data, control or support of the system concerned will not remain wholly within the jurisdiction of the United Kingdom, or(b) the supplier, or any subcontractor with access to NHS patient data, is subject to the law of a country or territory outside the United Kingdom under which access to such data could be compelled,(a “jurisdiction-risk contract”).(4) Before entering into a jurisdiction-risk contract, the Secretary of State must consult—(a) the National Cyber Security Centre,(b) persons representing the interests of patients, and(c) trade unions representing health service staff,on the proposed contract, and must, before, or as soon as reasonably practicable after, entering into the contract, lay before Parliament a report on that consultation.(5) As soon as reasonably practicable after entering into a jurisdiction-risk contract, the Secretary of State must lay before Parliament a statement setting out—(a) the reasons for the award, including how the matters in subsection (2) were taken into account, and(b) whether the Government is taking, or is planning to take, steps to develop or support long-term domestic alternatives to the systems provided under the contract. (6) The Secretary of State must, at least once in every period of 12 months, lay before Parliament a report setting out—(a) the number and total value of relevant contracts entered into during that period, the proportion of each awarded to UK suppliers, and the number and total value of jurisdiction-risk contracts entered into during that period; and (b) how the award of those contracts has contributed to the objectives of any NHS Digital Sovereignty Strategy published under section (NHS Digital Sovereignty Strategy) of the Health Act 2026 (NHS Digital Sovereignty Strategy).(7) A report or statement under this section may omit information the publication of which would be reasonably likely to prejudice national security or the commercial interests of any person, but must state that information has been omitted.(8) This section is without prejudice to the national security exemption under paragraph 25 of Schedule 2 to the Procurement Act 2023.(9) In this section—“material relevant contract” means a relevant contract with an estimated value, determined in accordance with Schedule 3 to the Procurement Act 2023, of more than the threshold amount that applies under Schedule 1 to that Act to a contract of that kind awarded by a central government authority, including a contract awarded under a framework and a renewal or extension of a relevant contract;“NHS patient data” means patient information (within the meaning given in section 250E(7)) relating to persons who have received health care or social care in England;“relevant contract” means a contract entered into by the Secretary of State for the provision of technology or information systems which—(a) form part of the single patient record, or hold or process patient information for its purposes, or(b) are provided for use across the health service in England as national systems and hold, process or provide access to NHS patient data;“the single patient record” means the system for making patient information available referred to in section 250E(1), whether or not established by regulations under that section;“UK supplier” means a company incorporated in the United Kingdom which either has no parent undertaking or each of whose parent undertakings (within the meaning of section 1162 of the Companies Act 2006) is incorporated, and has its head office, in the United Kingdom.””Member's explanatory statement
This new clause would require procurement of the single patient record and national systems handling NHS patient data to weigh UK jurisdiction over data, control and support, and UK capability, with consultation and statements to Parliament for higher-value contracts outside UK jurisdiction, and an annual report on the UK share.
Lord Tarassenko (CB)
My Lords, I shall also speak to Amendments 171 and 289, all in my name and that of the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, who I thank for her support. I remind the Committee of my interests: I hold an honorary contract with Oxford University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust, which is in the process of being renewed, and I am a director of LIO Health, a UK company which contracts with mental health NHS trusts.
The NHS holds health data no other country can match, namely longitudinal records for the whole population of England: primary care data, electronic patient records—EPRs—in hospitals and patient outcomes in multiple national registries. The single patient record, SPR, has the potential to bring primary care and secondary care records together for the first time and, in time, to link them to outcome data. That is a national asset of extraordinary value, not only for direct care but for research that will improve patient outcomes. It provides a unique opportunity for the UK companies that could build the systems which hold and process the SPR data.
The Government have told us that the SPR will indeed be delivered through contracts with multiple suppliers, with no single supplier dominating. Those contracts will be awarded over the next two years. These amendments ask a simple question: which companies are likely to win these contracts? Today, the US company Epic supplies the EPR in close to 20 NHS acute trusts. This year alone, four trusts in Somerset and Dorset have signed a £222 million 10-year contract with Epic, and Lewisham and Greenwich a £52 million contract. In general practice, EMIS, a company founded in Leeds, was sold to United Health in 2023 for £1.2 billion, and then on to another American company, a private equity firm, TPG, this year, so a large share of our GP records now sits with a US-owned supplier.
UK capability, although patchy, is still there. TPP, still UK-owned, supplies SystmOne across general practice and community services. Nervecentre, a British company founded in 2010, now has some 15 trusts committed to its cloud-native EPR, including a 10-year, £53-million contract with Liverpool University Hospitals, signed this spring. As I said at Second Reading, Kynos, a FTSE-250 company, won the contract in open competition to build UK Biobank’s output-checking system. UK companies can win and do win when procurement gives them a fair chance.
The contracts awarded for the single patient record in the next two years will typically run for 10 years and will define the health software market until the mid-2030s, the end of the NHS 10-year plan. If UK companies do not win a significant proportion of these contracts, the gap between US and UK suppliers will not stay where it is now. It will widen with every contract award, as revenue, engineering talent and know-how about NHS data build up on one side of the Atlantic. In 10 years’ time, that gap will be insurmountable. We will have lost the ability to build and support the core digital infrastructure of our own health service, and we will not get it back; the window to act is now.
Amendment 53 makes sure that UK jurisdiction and UK capability are taken into account when they matter: at the point of contract award. It requires the Secretary of State to take three matters into account when setting award criteria under Section 23 of the Procurement Act 2023 and when weighing value for money under Section 12(1)(a) for contracts for the single patient record and for national systems handling NHS patient data: first, the extent to which the data control and support of the system will remain within UK jurisdiction; secondly, the risk to the security and resilience of the NHS where they do not, including the risk that access to NHS patient data could be compelled under the law of another country, the US CLOUD Act being the obvious example; and, thirdly, consistent with our international obligations, the contribution the contract makes to building and maintaining UK capability.
Value for money is not simply the lowest price of a contract term. It must include the cost of dependency, the cost of exit and the value of the capability we keep. For larger contracts where data control or support will not remain entirely in the UK, the Secretary of State must consult the National Cyber Security Centre, patient representatives and NHS trade unions, and lay a Statement before Parliament explaining the award and whether domestic alternatives will be developed. Every year, the Secretary of State must report the number and total value of the contracts and the proportion awarded to UK suppliers, defined as UK companies with no foreign parent.
Amendment 53 deals with individual contracts and Amendment 171 provides a strategy. It requires the Secretary of State within 12 months of Royal Assent to publish an NHS digital sovereignty strategy. That strategy must cover four topics: first, treating NHS patient data as a sovereign data asset, including where it is stored and from where it may be accessed; secondly, assessing the risks across hardware, software, supply chains, and procurement, including reliance on foreign technology; thirdly, building domestic capability, including options to prioritise UK technologies; and, finally, research access to pseudonymised data in a way that keeps public trust. A sovereign data asset held in the UK under UK control with the benefits flowing back to the NHS is the best guarantee of that trust.
For research access, the NHS digital sovereignty strategy must set out the hierarchy: UK universities, medical research charities and the NHS itself, including the NIHR, will come first; UK suppliers second; and everyone else third. The strategy must also address how the NHS will share in the value created, with returns reinvested in the health service. Data must be accessed only within a trusted research environment in the UK, with outputs checked before release. Amendment 289 would bring both new clauses into force on Royal Assent, when the 12-month clock for the strategy would start, and the procurement duty in Amendment 53 would apply to the SPR contracts now being prepared.
All the amendments in this group share one concern: who controls the digital foundations of the NHS? I look forward to hearing from the noble Lords who have tabled them.
I support Amendment 277, from the noble Baroness, Lady Neville-Rolfe, which would require the Secretary of State to report on how NHS procurement supports patient care, value for money, resilient supply chains and economic activity in the UK. I also support Amendment 160, from the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, which would require the Secretary of State to establish through regulations a governance framework for NHS IT and data contracts.
Several amendments in this group are concerned specifically with the Palantir contract for the NHS federated data platform. After the Secretary of State’s appearance in front of the Commons Health and Social Care Committee last week, when she refused to be drawn on whether the Palantir contract would be extended, I look forward to hearing what the Minister might have to say about the topic. I have two questions that I hope the Minister will answer in full. First, how will the value-for-money assessment of the SPR contracts take account of UK jurisdiction and resilience? Secondly, will the Government commit to publishing an NHS digital sovereignty strategy, whether or not they accept the wording of Amendment 171? After all, last week the Secretary of State said:
“We want … sovereignty. That has to include sovereignty for UK data”.
This country has world-class health data science and a health tech sector that should be given the opportunity to grow. The single patient record contracts are the biggest opportunity that the sector will see in the next 10 years. We must not spend the next decade buying back our own capability at a premium. I beg to move.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Tarassenko. I will speak to Amendments 144, 147, 158 to 160, and 172E in my name, and I give our strong support to Amendment 53 on the digital sovereignty package, spoken to so convincingly by the noble Lord, Lord Tarassenko. We are very much singing from the same hymn sheet on these Benches.
I was unable to take part at Second Reading, but, over the years, as the noble Lord, Lord Kamall, will know from his time as a Minister, I have taken a strong interest in the access to, use and destination of NHS data for all purposes. Digital technology and data analytics hold transformative potential for our NHS, but technology is as effective only as the governance that underpins it, and health data platforms can succeed only if they command absolute public and clinical trust. If the NHS hands over its core data architecture to closed, proprietary vendors without retaining public ownership of software connectors or enforcing open API standards or clear parliamentary oversight, we risk locking our health service into perpetual vendor dependency.
In speaking to these amendments, I am building directly on the outstanding work of my Liberal Democrat colleagues in the Commons. I pay tribute to my honourable friend Martin Wrigley, who led the charge on vendor lock-in; my honourable friend Helen Morgan, who tabled a new clause on a sovereign health data trust; and my honourable friend Dr Danny Chambers, who tabled a new clause establishing the framework for an NHS digital sovereignty strategy.
On these Benches, we believe three principles should apply: NHS patient data is a sovereign public asset, exactly in the way that the noble Lord, Lord Tarassenko, described; data infrastructure must adhere to open, FAIR—findable, accessible, interoperable and reuseable—standards; and commercial suppliers must operate under strict public benefit conditions, with the NHS retaining full legal ownership of software interfaces and data pipelines.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow two of your Lordships’ House’s real experts in this area, and I look forward to hearing from a third shortly. To extend the metaphor of the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, we are singing from the same hymn sheet, but just different parts. That is what this group of amendments is doing.
I will start with my Amendments 168, 169 and 172B, and I will deal with Amendment 268 at the end, which is somewhat different. These three amendments address different parts of the same problem. Who has access to NHS patient data? Who controls the infrastructure holding that data? Should the NHS should continue to rely on Palantir to provide that infrastructure?
I will start with the principle behind all three: NHS patient data belongs to a public health service under public control. It should not be accessible to commercial companies simply because the NHS has entered into a contract with them to provide the technology. The Government will no doubt say that patient data remains under NHS control and that Palantir acts as a data processor and cannot use the information for its own commercial purposes. Those are important contractual assurances, but they do not, as the other amendments in this group highlight, answer the issues that are raised. There is a difference between owning the data and having control over the systems through which that data is accessed, processed and managed. There is also a difference between a contractual promise and having the practical ability to guarantee that sensitive information remains beyond the reach of commercial contractors. In fact, we know that that is exactly what is happening.
NHS England has confirmed that three Palantir engineers have administrative-level access to the national data integration tenant, part of the federated data platform. A further 12 Palantir engineers have had more limited project-specific access for particular data sets and tasks. Now, this is not an allegation that Palantir employees are routinely browsing individual patient records, but administrative-level access to a system holding identifiable patient information is a serious responsibility. It raises huge questions about the boundary between public control and commercial access. I note that the National Data Guardian herself has questioned this. She said that the information about external contractors having access to identifiable patient data appeared to be inconsistent with the data protection impact assessment she had previously reviewed and she sought clarification from NHS England on this.
Amendment 168 addresses this directly. It would stop commercial entities and their employees, officers and subcontractors from accessing identifiable NHS patient data. That includes not just direct access to patient records but administrative and privileged access to databases, as well as access through software, support, maintenance and testing. We need this because we cannot allow the distinction between accessing patient records and administering the systems that contain them to become a loophole in the protection of confidential information. Commercial suppliers can still provide technical services. The amendment does not prevent the NHS from buying software or obtaining technical support, but it requires those services to be delivered using anonymised records. The NHS should be able to benefit from technical expertise without giving commercial companies access to identifiable patient information.
We come to the specific issue of Palantir, which is covered by both amendments. Palantir, as has already been alluded to, is not an ordinary technology supplier with no wider controversies. Its work with the Israeli military has drawn serious criticism from human rights organisations, including Amnesty International, which has documented the company’s links to Israel’s military activities in Gaza. It is also important to look at the ownership and the philosophy of this company. In March, Alex Karp said he believes AI will shift power away from
“highly educated, often female voters who vote mostly Democrat”
and towards working-class men.
I asked the Library to have a look at the ownership and control structures of Palantir. I thank it for its very detailed research, to which I am not going to subject noble Lords in detail. The key point is that Alex Karp, to whom I have just referred, co-founder Stephen Cohen, and chairman Peter Thiel have between them 49.99% of voting power because of the stock structure of the company. I note that the major institutional shareholders are Vanguard Group and BlackRock, Inc. They are not known for being companies that stand up for human rights, the rule of law or the public good. They have very distinct financial interests.
In particular, the company’s chairman, Peter Thiel, is known for his controversial views. At the Oxford Union in 2023, he said that the NHS makes people ill and should be privatised. I note also, in a broader context, that he is on the record as framing politics as an existential struggle against the Antichrist. Mr Thiel has named possible suspects for the Antichrist, including Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Greta Thunberg and people who are critics of artificial intelligence. Now, that is quite disturbing. I would also note the fact that he was asked, in a video available online under the headline “Peter Thiel and the Antichrist”, whether he preferred the human race to endure. The interviewer said:
“You’re hesitating”.
Peter Thiel said:
“Well, I don’t know. I would … There are so many questions around this”.
The interviewer repeated:
“Should the human race survive?”
After 18 seconds, Mr Thiel said, “Yes”.
I have some questions to put to the Minister within the framework of the fact that the UN guiding principles on business and human rights make it clear that businesses have a responsibility to respect human rights. Have the Government properly considered those responsibilities when awarding and continuing this contract? Have they assessed Palantir’s links to breaches in international human rights law? Will the Government explain what human rights due diligence was undertaken?
I will jump to Amendment 172B. I stress that it does not say that we have to switch off Palantir immediately. It is a proposal for a transition away from Palantir, with patient care and data security protected throughout. The Government may point to the benefits that they say the federated data platform is already delivering. Of course, better use of data can help hospitals to manage waiting lists and make better use of resources, but none of that requires the NHS to surrender its control.
Lord Austin of Dudley (Non-Afl)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 279A in my name and comment on the potential impact of the amendments tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle.
My amendment would require the Secretary of State to report annually to Parliament on NHS and social care procurement of medical devices, consumables and services in England, assessing its performance against the objectives in Section 12(1) of the Procurement Act 2023, and would confine the report to those objectives. Noble Lords scrutinised the Act carefully, including the objectives that authorities must have regard to when carrying out procurement: delivering value for money; maximising public benefit; sharing information so that suppliers and others can understand procurement policies and decisions; and acting, and being seen to act, with integrity. Those duties are already established in law. My amendment would provide Parliament with a focused, regular account of how they are being applied in an area of considerable importance to patients and taxpayers.
In the NHS, as we heard earlier, value for money cannot simply mean the lowest purchase price. An MRI scanner that costs less to buy may prove more expensive over its working life through maintenance, breakdowns or additional training requirements. Reliability and clinical effectiveness matter, as do the consequences for patients when equipment is unavailable. An annual report would help Parliament to examine whether those considerations are being weighed properly. The Act does not require each objective to receive equal weight in every procurement, so the report should explain how they have been applied in practice.
Proposed new subsection (2) would keep the report focused on those established objectives; other applicable legal duties would continue to apply. Proposed new subsection (3) would exclude procurement still governed by the previous regulations under the transitional arrangements. The reporting arrangements should be proportionate, drawing wherever possible on information already collected. I hope the Minister can explain how the department intends to account to Parliament for the application of these objectives, and whether the Government would consider the focused annual reporting duty proposed in this amendment.
Amendment 172B raises serious legal and procedural problems. In singling out one company, it raises the question of whether it would make this Bill a hybrid Bill. It also risks breaching the United Kingdom’s obligations under the WTO Agreement on Government Procurement. The Ministerial Code expressly requires Ministers to comply with international law and treaty obligations. Will the Minister explain how this amendment could be implemented consistently with those duties? Your Lordships’ House spent many hours scrutinising the Procurement Act; this was serious work to protect public money, secure good services and ensure that suppliers are treated fairly. This amendment could completely undermine that work.
The amendment singles out one company by name, even though many tech companies provide services to the NHS. It seeks to end its contract at the first opportunity and exclude it from the replacement. It asks us to substitute a subjective political judgment for the outcome of a competition in which bids were assessed against objective published criteria. If its supporters believe that different standards should apply, they should explain what those standards are and apply them consistently; they should not ask Parliament to settle the outcome for one company in advance. What opportunity would the company have to demonstrate that it could meet the requirements? It would have none. However effective its technology and however competitive its price, the amendment would already have decided the answer. That is an extraordinary approach to spending public money. The precedent would extend well beyond this contract. We should be particularly careful about singling out a supplier by a political test that no elected body has defined.
Why should a company spend time and money competing for a public contract if the published rules can be set aside after it has won? The risks are clear: there would be fewer companies willing to bid, weaker competition and higher prices for taxpayers. While politicians argued about which suppliers they approved of, public services would wait longer for the technology they needed. If there is evidence that a supplier threatens national security, there are statutory powers for dealing with that. Serious allegations should be examined against the evidence, through the proper processes. Patients and taxpayers are entitled to ask what they would gain from this proposal. Would it mean shorter waits, safer care or lower costs? What would replacing the system cost? How would services be protected during the change? Where is the evidence that this amendment would deliver better care or better value?
We have already seen the consequences of the dispute over technology procurement. This is a different subject, but the principles still apply. When the Met was facing substantial financial pressures, the commissioner wanted to use technology to reduce administrative work and protect front-line services. He also said that it could help the police catch people who threaten the public
“at a pace that simply isn’t possible without”
the enabling technology. Yet the proposed contract was blocked and the commissioner warned that between 500 and 700 officers and staff posts delivering services to Londoners could be affected, which would make the city and its residents less safe. The mayor’s office said its concerns were about procurement and value for money. Those questions deserve proper examination, of course, but why were Londoners originally told suppliers should
“share the values of our city”?
Procurement requires evidence and a proper assessment of the consequences. It cannot become a test of whether politicians approve of a company’s so-called values. The same principle applies to the NHS. I think this amendment is a political boycott dressed up as procurement policy. It seeks to exclude a company from serving the NHS because of its relationship with Israel—but Israel, as the only liberal democracy in the Middle East, is deeply integrated into the world’s technology and medical industries. Major companies operate there, invest there and work with Israeli institutions. Palantir is one of many tech firms working in Israel. Perhaps its offence is that it is not embarrassed about it. Oracle came second in the bid process for the federated data platform; it has supplied software to the Israeli military. IBM came third; it has contracted to build data centres for the Israeli military. Microsoft has supplied the Israeli military with cloud technology. Nobody complains about Parliament using Microsoft Word and Outlook to conduct our business. If every corporate association is now a test of political purity and individual politicians’ values, there will be much more boycotting to be done in future.
This amendment singles out one company. It offers no consistent standard against which every supplier would be judged. Doing business with Israel should not disqualify a company from serving the NHS. Contracts should be awarded in line with the rules and on the basis of whether they can fulfil the contract, the quality of their work and value for money—open, free and fair competition which increases quality and reduces costs to the taxpayer.
The standards for technology in our health service should be demanding. Suppliers must demonstrate that their systems work, protect patient information and provide value for money. They must show how their technology helps doctors and nurses deliver better patient care. Every supplier should face those tests, because patients should come first. A patient waiting for cancer treatment gains nothing from a political boycott. If technology can help bring an operation forward, we should establish whether it works and can be used safely. Procurement decisions must not be turned into an instrument of somebody else’s foreign policy. If a system can help get someone treated sooner, I want the NHS to be able to use it. There should be fair rules, applied consistently, with patients and taxpayers coming first. Those are the principles that I ask the Minister to uphold.
Baroness Kidron (CB)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendments 53, 171 and 289 in the name of my noble friend Lord Tarassenko, and Amendment 160 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, all of which I added my name to. I have my own amendment on NHS data as a sovereign data asset in a later group, which is remarkably poor organising on my part, but it does give the Minister two shots at saying we are right.
The primary difference between the amendments in this group and those in the later group is that these amendments focus largely on the use of NHS data by companies contracted and procured to provide services to the NHS, rather than primarily on how the benefits from technology trained on NHS data are retained in the UK. However, both sets of amendments cover the key elements and, whichever approach is finally taken, determining who has access to UK health data, and on what terms, is an extremely urgent issue.
During debates on the Data (Use and Access) Bill last year, I tabled an amendment on sovereign data assets, of which the NHS’s data was a key example but not the only one. At the heart of that debate, which I urge officials to look at, was a warning that has become only more urgent. The speed at which the Government are giving access to our data is swifter than the plans they have to protect its financial or societal value. We are nearly two years on and there is still no published strategy or government policy to maintain British control over valuable data assets. We do not have a clear plan for how our data or the systems that host it will be resilient to foreign interference. We do not have a clear strategy for building technological capability within the NHS for its data or ensuring that all the healthcare and economic value that comes from our data will indeed come back to the UK as a benefit.
Amendment 53 offers a road map for the conditions for access to NHS contracts, with a focus on control of data, building sovereign capability for data handling and reducing the dependencies and risks from foreign firms. This is not government data; it is data held in trust for the British public and they are being poorly served.
Amendment 160 looks at how contracts are awarded and ownership of the architecture that supplies services to the NHS. It singles out the way in which free or low-cost services are used to gain access, create dependency and result in vendor lock-in, which a number of noble Lords have already described well.
Amendments 171 and 289 would require the Secretary of State to publish a digital sovereignty strategy for the NHS, including control of systems that host data, control over the data itself, avoiding vendor lock-in and capitalising on our data to build technological capability and commercial value. It is an exhaustive checklist, but it mirrors those issues I laid in the Data (Use and Access) Bill and the Cyber Security and Resilience Bill, and in the debate on digital sovereignty in July. It also aligns with multiple recommendations by committees of both Houses, including—I will try to say this very quickly—the Commons Science, Innovation and Technology Committee’s report, Rewiring the State; the Commons BIST Committee’s report, Investing in the UK Economy, the Joint Committee on the National Security Strategy’s report on undersea cables; and the Lords Science and Technology Committee’s inquiry into financing and scaling UK science and technology. The Lords committee also has an open inquiry on innovation in the NHS and personalised medicine. How many times do we have to make the same recommendation? This is a flashing warning light.
Baroness Hyde of Bemerton (Lab)
My Lords, as agreed by the usual channels, we need to move to consider dinner-break business. While unusual, I therefore propose that the debate on this amendment be adjourned and that we return to it after dinner.
Mobile Phones in Schools
(1 day, 6 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Cash (Con)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for the Statement, which we on these Benches wholeheartedly welcome. The statutory guidance for schools is to be updated, so that from September 2027 schools must act to ensure that
“children cannot have unsecured mobile phones in their blazer or bag throughout the school day”.
The road to get here may have been somewhat longer and more tortured by late nights in Division Lobbies than desired by the majority in this House, but it is always to be celebrated when we achieve consensus in the end.
I would like to take a moment to pay tribute to my noble friend Lady Barran, who led on this issue in your Lordships’ House, despite the then Secretary of State, the right honourable Bridget Phillipson, calling a phone ban a “headline-grabbing gimmick”. In June last year, my noble friend tabled an amendment to the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Bill to ask for exactly what has now been announced. In February, this House agreed to that by 178 votes to 140. The noble Baronesses, Lady Kidron and Lady Cass, and the noble Lord, Lord Hampton, put their names to it. Peers across the House voted for it. In the other place, my right honourable friend Laura Trott pressed the case at every stage. I put on the record my thanks to them all.
It is such a positive change of heart for the benefit of children that I find myself in joyous agreement with the Secretary of State, Lucy Powell—a line you may not always hear me utter—who said yesterday:
“Children should not be using smartphones at any point during the school day, full stop”.
Amen. But the stronger guidance will not apply until September 2027, so pupils taking GCSEs this year will still have the grade-lowering distraction of their phones. Can the Minister please tell us why on earth the guidance cannot take effect more urgently?
While I of course welcome the Government’s consultation into independent safety certification for educational technology, the Statement is completely silent on the real issue: there is insufficient evidence to prove that educational technology improves educational outcomes at all, and growing, serious evidence to indicate the very opposite, that it can be a real detriment to learning. The evidence and the warnings are here now, yet the Statement is silent on the need to reduce time spent on screens in classrooms, and on the known damage of edtech already. Even on the Labour Benches in the other place, the concerns were being cited. The Minister, Josh MacAlister, warned that
“where technology has been left to let rip”
in other countries, it
“has displaced books, reading, writing”.—[Official Report, Commons, 10/11/26; col. 61.]
The Labour MP Alistair Strathern told the House that generative AI threatens to harm
“children’s learning in the same way that smartphones did”.—[Official Report, Commons, 10/11/26; col. 63.]
Be under no illusions that children having access to screens in any context in schools is going to facilitate both. In September, the OECD reported that pupils who use AI for tasks such as summarising texts score lower in science on average. A study of almost 1,000 secondary pupils found that those who practised maths with a chatbot scored 17% lower when they were tested without it.
The neuroscientist Dr Jared Cooney Horvath, whose book The Digital Delusion is essential reading on this subject and has just been published in the UK, told the United States Senate in January that this is the first modern generation to score lower than its parents on core cognitive skills. His review of almost 400 meta-analyses found that pupils read with less understanding on screens than on paper, and that the effect of edtech on disadvantaged pupils is the greatest of all. He reported that pupils on classroom devices can be off task, though they appear to be on their screens, for up to 38 minutes in every hour. Having teachers in my family, I know exactly how challenging that is, because they talk about it. Sweden has already reversed course and is spending heavily to put printed books back in its classrooms.
According to Dr Horvath’s analysis of PISA data for England since 2012, which is available on his Substack, independent schools, which sharply and more rapidly increased their use of classroom technology, found that their pupils’ results fell back, including once background is taken into account. State schools used far less technology, and their pupils’ results rose. I know the Minister shares my concern and real desire to see all our pupils do their very best and achieve their potential, and I know she will take seriously this mounting body of evidence that we must put the brakes on the use of edtech. But at the moment the department is going ahead with developing AI tutors for up to 450,000 disadvantaged pupils, the very children who most need a good teacher in front of them. The certification scheme announced yesterday has no timetable, and the department says it has no power to require schools to use it. As proposed, it would test safety but leave out whether a product actually helps children to learn.
On phones, this House gave warnings and the Government took two years to act. On edtech and AI, the warnings are being given here tonight, on the record. Will the Minister confirm that the AI tutoring programme will go no further than the Education Endowment Foundation trials until those trials report, and that certification will be compulsory and will test learning as well as safety? Will the Minister meet Peers from all Benches in this House who have raised these concerns before the consultation closes, so that this time we can get more quickly to the right answer for British children?
Lord Mohammed of Tinsley (LD)
My Lords, I welcome the Government’s announcement and, in particular, their recognition that schools must be places where children can concentrate, learn and develop relationships without the constant distraction of mobile phones.
However, I hope the Minister will forgive me for pointing out that the Government have taken rather a long time to arrive at this position. It was rightly pointed out that it was the Opposition Benches in your Lordships’ House who consistently pressed for schools to become phone-free environments. I notice that the noble Baroness, Lady Barran, is in her place. We spent many a time meeting with parents, head teachers and other campaigners.
During the passage of the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Act, we pushed the Government to put their guidance on a statutory footing, despite their initial reluctance. We argued that the voluntary guidance was insufficient and that head teachers needed clarity and consistency, and I am pleased that the Government have finally recognised the strength of that argument.
The stats presented underline why further action is necessary. Only 16% of secondary school pupils say that mobile phone rules are followed all the time. More strikingly, where schools operate a “not seen, not heard” policy, only 20% of school leaders report consistent compliance, compared with 74% where phones are collected. That is compelling evidence that the existing approach is not working.
However, announcing stronger guidance is one thing; giving schools the resources to implement it is quite another. The Government have suggested that schools can choose between collecting phones, secure lockers or lockable pouches—but these approaches all have financial and practical implications. The Education Committee has highlighted that purchasing pouches alone can cost a secondary school around £20,000. We all know that school budgets are under enormous pressure, and we cannot expect head teachers to absorb yet another unfunded responsibility. Can the Minister therefore explain why the Government are not providing dedicated funding to support schools with implementation? Will they commit to ensuring that no school is disadvantaged because it cannot afford the necessary equipment?
Secondly, I welcome the Government’s recognition that exemptions and reasonable adjustments will be necessary for children with medical and special educational needs and disabilities. For some children, a mobile phone is not simply a distraction; it is an essential tool for managing a medical condition, communicating or accessing support. I am also particularly concerned about young carers, who may need to check on a sick, disabled or vulnerable family member during the school day. Will the Minister give an explicit assurance that young carers will be included in the exemptions alongside children with SEND and medical needs, and that these arrangements will be straightforward rather than creating additional barriers for vulnerable pupils?
Finally, I strongly support the principle that head teachers should have the flexibility to decide how best to implement a phone-free environment in their schools. Schools have different circumstances, communities and practical challenges. A one-size-fits-all approach to enforcement will not necessarily work. Flexibility must be matched with resources, clear guidance and proper support. Will the Minister commit to working directly with school leaders and representative organisations to ensure that the revised guidance is practical and properly funded, and does not simply transfer additional costs on to already stretched schools and parents?
Our children deserve classrooms where they can concentrate, learn and enjoy their childhood without the pressures of smartphones and social media. We on these Benches have been campaigning for this change for a long time and we welcome the Government finally moving in the right direction. But we must now ensure that this policy works in practice for every school and every child. I look forward to the Minister’s response.
The Minister of State, Department for Education and Department for Work and Pensions (Baroness Smith of Malvern) (Lab)
My Lords, in January 2026 the Government strengthened their guidance on mobile phones in schools, making it clear that all schools should have mobile phones policy that prevents pupils having access to their phone throughout the school day, including during lessons, the time between lessons, break times and lunchtimes. This guidance was put on a statutory footing during the passage of what became the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Act, and schools have been required to implement it since September 2026. However, evidence and feedback from the sector—and from noble Lords in this House—suggest that challenges persist.
That is why the Government are announcing that we will update statutory guidance to be clear that schools should have policies that ensure children cannot have unsecured mobile phones in their bag or blazer throughout the school day. This backs teachers and leaders with the clarity that they are asking for. This may mean phones are collected at the start of the day, kept in secure lockers, stored in a lockable pouch, or any other strategies that ensure phones are not accessed at any point during the school day.
Noble Lords opposite raised points about the timetable. While the new statutory guidance will be introduced from September 2027, it is of course the Government’s wish—I believe evidence suggests that this will happen—that schools move more quickly towards the implementation of this policy. Of course, we have seen evidence in the last year with a near doubling in the numbers of schools that are ensuring that pupils cannot have any access to their phones during the course of the day. This answers the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Mohammed of Tinsley, about resources.
All the evidence about the different ways in which schools have approached this issue suggests that it is culture, leadership and clarity that are the most important elements in ensuring that schools are successful in carrying out this policy. We are confident that schools will be able to move more quickly than the beginning of the revised statutory guidance in September 2027. Of course, we will want to work with leaders and others within our schools to ensure that this policy is both supported by government and put in place in our schools.
The noble Lord made a particular point about young carers. It is quite tricky because, arguably, young carers, as much as any other child, deserve the opportunity to have a mobile phone-free experience in school. I am not sure that specifically exempting them is the most appropriate way forward, but we would expect schools to recognise the need for young carers sometimes to be able to phone home or to be contacted. Using the school office, for example, to facilitate that might be a good way forward.
Noble Lords raised points about edtech safety certification. Technology is now an integral part of education, supporting teaching, learning and the smooth running of schools, colleges and early years settings. It is essential that children and young people learn to use technology confidently and safely, so they are prepared for and can thrive in a rapidly evolving digital world.
However, technology should support learning, rather than get in its way, and it must be safe. The Department for Education has developed and already sets standards for the safe use of technology in education settings, including digital and technology standards and generative AI product safety standards, setting our expectations for the safe use of technology in education settings. However, schools and other education settings often have to make complex technical judgments when selecting technology without clear and consistent evidence about product safety. That is the thinking behind the consultation launched yesterday on proposals for edtech safety certification.
This is about getting ahead of the curve and ensuring that the Government are not passive to technological change but actively ensuring that it is safe for children and supports their development, and also supports schools with difficult decisions about appropriate edtech in a rapidly changing technological environment.
I do not think the noble Baroness, Lady Cash, really means that there should be no use of screens in classrooms. One of the things I regret from my time teaching is that I never got the opportunity to use a whiteboard, for example, in the imaginative way that is pretty well taken for granted in most classrooms now. Nor did I get to use technology to support group work and learning, in some of the ways where I think there is evidence that it supports, rather than replaces, pupils’ learning. Of course, it is important that we are clear about how it is used and that we agree that schools need good evidence about whether technology is effective.
We think that safety and effectiveness require different approaches. Safety can be assessed against clear expectations, while educational effectiveness depends on the pupils, the setting and how a product is used. That is why we are addressing effectiveness through the £24 million national edtech test bed programme, to build evidence about what works, for whom and in what contexts. We think that together these two approaches will help schools to make informed decisions about technology that is both safe and effective and, in doing that, provide the support and evidence that teachers need to ensure access to learning and the space to do that without being sidetracked by the use of mobile phones. That is what our children deserve.
Baroness Barran (Con)
My Lords, first I thank noble Lords who were so generous in their remarks about my part in getting us to this point. As was noted, I was definitely not alone; other noble Baronesses who are in the House tonight were there on the journey. I am not sure what the Minister and I will talk about if we cannot talk about “not seen, not heard” any more, but I hope we will find something else.
I have a few specific questions for the Minister; if she would prefer to write on any of them, I would be very happy with that. First, the Statement talks about there being flexibility around children who have medical needs and SEND. Could she give the House an example of where a child with SEND would need their personal mobile device, as opposed to a school-provided device that would meet their needs? Secondly, will the guidance cover school trips as well as the school day? We know that some pretty terrible things have happened with phones on school trips. Also, are the Government planning to future-proof the guidance? Schools are talking about smart watches and smart glasses. How do the Government intend to approach that?
I was very pleased to read in the Statement that the Government plan to talk to head teachers. Many of us in this House know some really pioneering head teachers, including those who have prohibited phones completely, used brick phones or taken other approaches. I am sure they would be delighted either to meet directly with the Minister or to contribute as the guidance is developed.
Finally, in our debates on mobile phones and on social media, we learned that health professionals were often the first to spot a lot of the problems that we are now talking about. Speech and language therapists, opticians and so on were noticing changes in children. Is there a place for some of those health experts as the edtech kitemark is developed?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
I thank the noble Baroness; it is certainly the case that she has been tenacious on this issue. We have talked about lots of other things, and I am sure we will again in future. I am slightly fearful about what she will choose to get her teeth into next.
On the examples, in this House we have previously talked about specific assistive technology that might be important for young people and medical technology that is linked to a phone, for example for diabetes monitoring. Those would be the sorts of things that would fall into that category.
On the point about school trips, it is not the intention of the guidance that this policy will apply when children are travelling to and from school, so I feel it probably would not cover school trips. I will come back to the noble Baroness if I am wrong about that.
The noble Baroness makes an important point about future-proofing all this. The fact that we have updated the guidance and are taking further action around edtech demonstrates the situation we find ourselves in. Both the evidence and technology are developing fast, and of course we will want to keep up with that.
On the methods and gadgets that the noble Baroness discussed, we intend to produce AI in education guidance that will help identify some of the opportunities and issues in other areas. I do not know how long I will be here, particularly given the way I am feeling this evening, but I have no doubt that this will not be the last time I talk about how we are updating our work in government to ensure that the objective that all noble Lords share—that children need to be able to focus on learning rather than scrolling or the distraction that comes from screens—is at the heart of our work.
Her final point about health experts was a very good one. I will certainly take that back and consider how we engage with health experts as part of this work.
Baroness Kidron (CB)
My Lords, I too pay tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Barran. Tenacity is a good word; I was thinking of something a little tougher earlier.
I really do welcome this Statement and join with others in regretting that we have had to fight so hard for it. I looked this up in Hansard and noticed that the first time we debated this was five years ago. The battle of last year, or a couple of years ago, was the culmination of us all coming together. I say that not to take anything away from that particular fight but to make a broader point about the things that we did not get in that Bill.
I thank the Secretary of State in particular for the Statement and for getting it over the line now. She has succeeded where others have failed. I really want to recognise that moment.
I welcome the Government’s commitment to independent certification of educational technology—something else that we have fought for over many years—and in particular its references to filtering and monitoring. I was very grateful for the letter from the early years Minister and his officials earlier in the week. However, I am concerned about the focus on safety; it is much narrower than I and other noble Lords have been calling for. I absolutely understand what the Minister here said about safety being a crucial factor, but it is a minimal bar: children flourishing in education is what we all seek and I think that would be a better bar. I am sure that we all recognise, just as with mobile phones, that the question is not simply whether technology is safe but “What is it replacing?”
I was at a conference about AI in education a couple of weeks ago, and the overwhelming evidence was—as the noble Baroness, Lady Cash, mentioned—that many of the AI products currently available produced better results in tests, but then the children failed to retain what they had learned. The response at the conference, which was largely focused on putting AI into schools, was simply that the tech would get better. That is tantamount to asking children to teach AI, rather than AI teaching children.
I am sure that the Minister will remember that I had amendments in the same Bill on edtech and on standards for efficacy, et cetera. I recognise that the Government have chosen to do this in guidance, but I ask that they take a broader view on what we need to look at in edtech. Schools are places where children grow, not just learn, and where relationships, confidence and agency matter just as much as passing tests and measurable outcomes. I will again say that I welcome the Statement, but I ask the Minister to ensure that independent certification and the Government’s wider approach to technology in schools protect the things that most matter for a child’s development and cannot be readily measured.
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
I thank the noble Baroness for the work that she has been engaged in, alongside our officials, in the scope of the certification scheme. That has been welcomed. On the point about whether the focus is only on safety, I think we have a broad conception of safety in the standards against which the certification will be made.
For example, as I said, this will be certification against the standards, including our world-leading generative AI standards, which recognises that cognitive development of children is an important aspect to be considered when thinking in broad terms about safety. I do not think that the certification will have quite the narrow scope that the noble Baroness suggests, but I reiterate the point that we are interested not only in certification of products but in research on what is effective, how and where, and for whom—we are investing money in that—and we are looking forward for other uses of AI in education, where we will produce further guidance.
Lord Addington (LD)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for giving us a chance to discuss the Statement. It is an odd thing. It starts off about mobile phones. There are three pages of it, and it stops talking about mobile phones after one-and-a-third pages, or one and a quarter, I think. When we are talking about educational technology, we are probably going to be covering assistive technology as well and SEN, and I remind the House yet again that I am a dyslexic. I am a dyslexic who needs assistive technology to write accurately. The assistive technology that I had at school was a person I had to dictate to. I am a big lad, but even I do not want to carry around another adult with me all the time.
Can we make sure that we allow people into the system by the use of technology? I am also chairman of Microlink PC. We are also making sure that those who have a disability can address it. The fact remains—I said this before, but I lost a Division on it—that the mobile phone is a wonderful platform for carrying assistive tech. Visual impairment and deafness can be addressed, to an extent, by it. New products are going out the whole time and, if I had longer, I would give your Lordships a commercial on some of the things that I have seen today.
Unless we get an assurance from the Government that they are going to use technology to allow people into the system, we are never going to address all the problems in special educational needs by means that grant independence and a way in. Also, I do not know if a Kindle is regarded as educational technology, but I am sure nobody here would accuse somebody of not reading properly if they read a book on a Kindle or via audio technology. Can the Minister take this opportunity to guarantee that the Government will allow people with special educational needs into the system by using technology whenever that is deemed appropriate and that it will be an ongoing process?
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
I think that the way that the noble Lord describes the issue as letting people in is very helpful in thinking about our approach more broadly to special educational needs and disability reform, where we want our schools and learning for children to be as inclusive as possible. One way, as the noble Lord frequently identifies, is through the use of assistive technology. I can assure him that that will be an important part of the SEND reforms and will be maintained through the guidance on the use of phones, as I think I have already set out.
Baroness Thornton (Lab)
I very much welcome this Statement, particularly the edtech safety certification that is in it, because it will support the very difficult decisions that schools are having to take about what to purchase next, how to purchase it and what they and their pupils should be doing with it. Before I ask my question, I want to say that I was slightly surprised by the noble Baroness, Lady Cash. Her championing of paper sounded a bit Luddite to me. If the weight of my granddaughter’s backpack is anything to go by, given the books and papers that she has in there, I think paper at her school plays a very large part in her education. However, her maths homework is set on the tablet that she does it on, and the fact that the homework is set online means that my daughter can watch, supervise and make sure that it gets done. I think that those are excellent uses.
The question I wanted to ask my noble friend was about young pupils whose parents cannot purchase the devices that they might need to help them with their education and whether there is some recognition that there is an inequality here that could be perpetuated by the use of technology. I know—I hope—that my Government are recognising that, as usual.
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
I thank my noble friend. She ably makes a point about the range of uses to which technology may well be put and the ways in which it may well, depending on the evidence—which of course we are developing—support children’s learning. She also makes an important point about the use of devices. Our view as a Government is that any expectations on students should not require them to purchase screens or digital devices, for precisely the reason that my noble friend outlined. To return to the noble Lord’s point, the use of technology has to include people, and not exclude them by virtue of their family background or their income at home.
Baroness Penn (Con)
My Lords, I welcome that the consultation on certification for technology covers early years settings. We made good progress on the Bill earlier this year on guidance for parents and carers of early years children and early years settings in terms of screen time and the use of technology. Can the Minister update us on two areas with regard to that? The first is what the DfE is doing to understand whether that guidance is reaching parents and carers, whether it is understood by them and whether they are changing their behaviour in any way on the back of it. The second is what progress the DfE is making on consulting on more substantive changes to the early years foundation stage statutory framework, following the welcome update in September, to link to updated guidance. The DfE committed to further changes looking not just at pedagogy but at safeguarding. It committed to implementing that by April 2027, so time is a bit tight if there needs to be consultation and other action along the way.
Baroness Smith of Malvern (Lab)
The noble Baroness makes two important points. On the first, early evidence on the impact of the screen time guidance is encouraging. Independent research from Internet Matters found that three in five parents of children of five and under had heard of the Government’s screen time guidance, and 88% found it helpful, while 94% said, after reviewing it, that they were already taking or planned to take action.
On the point about the early years framework, in July 2026, the department published screen use guidance for early years settings. That builds on the guidance for parents published in March 2026 and was produced with contributions from sector experts, including the Digital Standards for Early Years Children Action Group and the Early Years Screen Time Advisory Group. As the noble Baroness argued for, that guidance is designed to help early years settings support children’s healthy development, which evidence shows requires sufficient sleep, play, real-world interaction and responsive adult engagement, while ensuring any use of screens is purposeful, safe and appropriate. That statutory early years foundation stage framework came into force on 1 September 2026, and it requires early years practitioners to have regard to the screen use guidance in their setting. However, I suspect that the noble Baroness is right, as I suggested earlier, that in all these areas, as technology and evidence develops, we will want to return to this to make sure that, whatever age our children are and whatever setting they are in, their use of technology is informed by the very best evidence and is safe for all of them.
Health Bill
(1 day, 6 hours ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Baroness Coffey (Con)
My Lords, where do we start? Where did we end and where are we going? That is part of the challenge of a mid-group break, especially when this is a large group which covers a number of important areas. I am conscious that the noble Lord, Lord Austin of Dudley, has said a fair amount of what I had planned to say. I am concerned that a single company is being singled out and about comments made regarding wacky views of somebody who has an ownership in it. I think that the Church of Scientology is wacky. It does not stop me watching a Tom Cruise film. Wackier is the statement made by Green Party members that Zionism is racism. That is pretty wacky. Nevertheless, it is for them to decide and a matter of freedom of speech and freedom of thought.
Coming back to the substance of this group of amendments, I am conscious that we will come back in more detail to the single patient record. Looking at aspects of the amendment tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, there is a lot of merit in thinking about how we put a shell around data in this country. I understand the sovereignty approach. For example, all the DWP data, on very vulnerable people, used to be held in Ireland because the data was held by Amazon Web Services. That saved money for the taxpayer. We had no problem at all, until we left the European Union and made the decision to bring all that very precious data back into the UK in case of other rule changes which may have restricted our access to that data or new laws applying because of where it was held. Therefore, there is a lot of merit in saying that it must be here.
It is worth noble Lords looking at the letter sent by the Health Innovation Minister, James Frith MP, to Layla Moran, who chairs the Health and Social Care Committee in the Commons. It tackles some of the issues that have been raised. People do not want their data to be all around the world. They are scared that it might expose them to something. That should be safeguarded against. That letter covers a lot regarding IP rights and how the NHS either owns it or has, effectively, a permanent licence or right to deploy the technology that was there.
However, I am concerned when we start getting into, “If this prioritisation of researchers is in the UK, that’s sort of okay and we prioritise public over private first” and so on. We are missing the point that this data is being released in an anonymised way for the benefit of patients. It is not a bad thing that a private company can make some money. It is not a bad thing that GSK or Pfizer may start to make tailored medicines and medications based on the evidence of what has been happening with patients in the UK. I accept that is a very rich dataset. Not then being allowed to develop new medicines and, therefore, make profits feels an unnecessarily Soviet-style approach when we are trying to ensure that a lot of this linking together is being done to improve the health of people in this country. Approaches could be modified.
I am also a bit of a purist. We should not be legislating about how the NAO should do its work or the work it should do. The NAO is a body of Parliament. Its chief executive is an officer of Parliament. It is not in legislation but under our Standing Orders it is responsible exclusively to the Public Accounts Committee and has a broader duty regarding understanding value for money and the use of taxpayers’ money. Some of the actions that are being referred to may well be stuff that it will wish to take forward in its analyses.
However, it would be helpful for the Government to appreciate that Minister Frith’s letter to the Commons Select Committee was targeted only in a particular response to certain points that had been made during that evidence session, correcting an important error that had been made in the DPIA. It would be helpful for the Government to have a more open approach in sharing how this will all work and how it is already working, and in giving assurances to parliamentarians of both Houses on how it will work in practice to quash this myth that, all of a sudden, stuff is being done that will expose vulnerable people.
This is the wider point about IT and digital sovereignty. We have a National Data Guardian, which has already been put in statute. By the way, I recall that, when NHS Digital was a separate legal entity, it refused to give information to the chief executive of NHS England when certain data was requested. At one point during the Covid crisis, it refused to give information to help the Government function more effectively. With these sorts of issues, it is almost as if what is perfect for privacy, or for this, that or the other, becomes the enemy of the good in what we are trying to achieve, which is the good use of technology and the federated platform to improve productivity.
I know that there have been disputes. It is important that the Office for Statistics Regulation, the parent organisation of the ONS, did that review. It pointed out issues that need to be addressed in future, but it did not say: “Actually, the information that the NHS has given out is largely wrong”. How do we try to improve from where we are right now and not miss out on the genuine opportunity of trying to work through, and make the most of, our technological advances?
I appreciate that there are also thoughts about whether it should just be a UK supplier. Again, this is the wrong approach and mentality. The DHSC and the NHS have got more sophisticated in their way of doing procurement, so to rule out any IT company that is not headquartered here in the UK would be a huge error.
There are other broader elements around where we are heading. I will leave some comments for our later debate on SPR, but there is something here about making sure that there is privacy by design—I think that was the phrase used by the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones. I have been weighing this up, and I will come back to it on SPR, but it concerns me somewhat, because we might think that we will happily hand it over to this or that clinician, or it will be used more broadly, but who really gets to see it? All this data is being used in an anonymised fashion. If, for example, GSK was purchased by a foreign pharmaceutical company, some of these amendments—I appreciate that they might be probing, although their level of detail suggests that this is exactly what noble Lords want them to achieve—would start to allow legal challenges about how this could be done. As I say, do not let perfection in one aspect be the enemy of the good in another, which is making the best of NHS resources to improve people’s health. I am sure we will return to this on Report, but I encourage noble Lords who will be writing amendments to reflect on how far into that level of detail they need to go.
Lord Kamall (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have brought forward amendments in this group. I well recall the debates that the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, and I had during the Health and Care Bill in 2022. I think he was surprised to find that we agreed on far more than he thought we would. What was very helpful in that Bill, if I remember correctly, was that there was an official who had been seconded from the Cabinet Office to the Department of Health, whom we were both able to trust to find a solution that we were both happy with in the end. Sadly, having reached that really good solution, it has all been undone by this Bill. I therefore completely understand the reasons for the amendments tabled by many noble Lords in this group.
I will speak briefly to the amendments tabled by my noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe, who is not in her place, and by the noble Lord, Lord Austin of Dudley. Although these amendments approach the question of NHS procurement slightly differently, they raise important questions about the principles that underpin the way in which taxpayers’ money will be spent. While NHS procurement should always support the delivery of safe, effective and high-quality care for patients, we know that the NHS is not only a provider of healthcare but one of the largest purchasers of goods and services in this country and a major employer. It has an enormous impact on the wider economy, with the potential to support British businesses, to encourage innovation and our domestic manufacturing capabilities, and to create skilled employment in areas such as medical technology and life sciences research, where the United Kingdom already possesses considerable experience.
My noble friend Lady Neville-Rolfe probes the Government on how we use that purchasing power intelligently, not only to secure the goods and services that the NHS requires but to support resilience, innovation and wider economic prosperity in the country while adhering to the principle of value for money. It also raises an important question about how we assess value for money. As the noble Lord, Lord Tarassenko, said, the cheapest initial purchase is not necessarily the best in the long term.
Baroness Coffey (Con)
Amendment 277 is not in this group, according to the list circulated today, unless there has been more than one of them.
Lord Kamall (Con)
My understanding is that it is in this group, but maybe other noble Lords can confirm. There is a slight disagreement between my noble friend’s and my understanding of that.
I repeat that important point made by the noble Lord, Lord Tarassenko: the cheapest initial purchase is not necessarily best in the long term. There is also a legitimate question about whether procurement requirements have become unnecessarily complicated, which the noble Lord, Lord Austin of Dudley, calls for in his amendment, around clarity and consistency about the objectives against which procurement decisions are assessed.
I turn to the wider concerns raised in this group about patient data, digital sovereignty and the security of NHS information systems. Patients need to have confidence that their data is secure and their privacy is respected. I quite often like to quote my favourite philosopher, Jimi Hendrix. I have cited this more than once. He talked about building castles made of sand that fall into the sea eventually. What we do not want is the single patient record or the federated data platform to be that castle made of sand that falls into the sea eventually because there is no confidence from patients and they want to opt out of the system. We have tabled our own amendments on the single patient record that speak directly to some of these concerns. I will return to those points when we reach that group.
The crux of the matter is Palantir, what people really think about Palantir and whether it should be here. When I was the relevant Minister, I was told quite clearly by my officials that Palantir had by far the best solution to deliver the federated data platform. We should acknowledge the contribution it has made in increasing discharges, reducing discharge times, identifying and contacting patients who need to come back, making sure cancellations are reduced, and all those sorts of metrics that we want to see.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Care (Baroness Merron) (Lab)
My Lords, I am most grateful to noble Lords for their contributions to this debate. As before, I will focus on the amendments before us. I start with the future of the NHS federated data platform and the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, who spoke to his Amendments 158, 159 and 172E, and the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, who spoke to her Amendment 172B.
As I hope noble Lords will agree, decisions about public contracts must be made through fair, open and non-discriminatory processes, which is the point the noble Lord, Lord Kamall, was making. This is governed by UK procurement law and it ensures we get the best outcomes and solutions for the National Health Service. NHS England is reviewing the contract to determine whether it should continue, subject to standard contract management processes and government approvals. This process remains ongoing and decisions will be announced formally.
I can assure your Lordships’ House that the FDP operates under the direction of the NHS and each trust and ICB that has signed up uses it as it sees fit. Furthermore, Article 25 of the UK GDPR, which requires organisations to include data protection by design and default, already applies to the FDP. Were data to be anonymised as Amendment 158 proposes, it would prevent the delivery of national services such as national vaccination and screening, and key activity supporting the management, operation and provision of national health services.
I feel it would be helpful to set out the potential implications of Amendment 172B. When it was tabled, the usual channels received advice from the House authorities that the amendment would, in their view, risk making the Bill hybrid as it seeks to put in the Bill that the contract of one specific company is not extended. If the Bill is hybridised through amendment, those affected will have the opportunity to petition, after which the Bill will be referred to a Select Committee.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
Can the Minister confirm the date when the decision will be announced on whether or not there will be retendering of that FDP Foundry contract?
Baroness Merron (Lab)
I am not able to confirm the exact date, but I can say, as I said earlier, that the decision will be announced formally, so noble Lords will be made aware.
On the questions of security, resilience and sovereign capability, as raised in Amendments 53, 171 and 289 by the noble Lord, Lord Tarassenko, the Government share his determination to protect patient data and to support the strong UK digital health market. However, I am not able to commit to an NHS digital sovereignty strategy, nor additional legislation. Supply risk is not determined by nationality or jurisdiction alone. What matters is the data involved, who can access it, the supplies controls and the contractual protections in place. We already have robust safeguards. The Procurement Act 2023, about which much has been spoken, provides powers to exclude suppliers where appropriate, including on national security grounds. It also provides for setting data protection and cyber security requirements.
I note specifically the noble Lord’s concerns about the procurement of the single patient record, and I am looking forward to a more focused discussion, as I know all noble Lords are, on the SPR at a later Committee stage. I can confirm now that the procurement will have to ensure the resilience of our systems, how we keep within the UK jurisdiction and that the data remains under NHS control. The noble Lord, Lord Tarassenko, raised concerns that foreign laws could require an overseas supplier to give access to NHS data. We take that risk extremely seriously and aim to ensure that the legal, contractual and cyber-security safeguards are in place to avoid this.
I fully endorse encouraging domestic innovation, as I hope noble Lords are aware. As the Chancellor set out in the recent Budget, the Government will use public procurement strategically to back British firms to strengthen domestic capability and to build resilience in key supply chains. We will continue to promote international investment and trade and to open opportunities for British businesses at home and in markets around the world.
The noble Baroness, Lady Kidron, indicated her agreement with the noble Lord, Lord Tarassenko, in this area. The points on sovereign data being an asset will come back in the group beginning with Amendment 142, and again I look forward to debating that. We want a vibrant UK market for tech, and practical action is already under way. NHS England is engaging industry ahead of procurements, structuring opportunities to increase SME participation, and using social value to support good jobs and skills, which we all want to see.
I turn to Amendment 279A, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Austin. He too raises the important question of accountability within this amendment, and we agree that contracting authorities should be accountable to the objectives of the Procurement Act, which already apply directly to covered procurement. The Act also provides transparency and oversight mechanisms, including powers to investigate compliance. The Procurement Act 2023 already requires publication of contract details for contracts worth over £5 million and, where applicable, key performance indicators and annual assessments of supplier performance against them. This makes a further NHS-specific annual reporting duty unnecessary in our view. For medtech, our value-based procurement approach further supports decisions focused on patient outcomes, total care costs, and longer-term value.
Lord Scriven (LD)
The amendment from the noble Lord, Lord Austin, refers to
“medical devices, consumables and services”.
There are two laws in place for procurement for the NHS: one for services and one for goods. What about the services? We have heard about the goods, but what about the accountability and feedback for services?
Baroness Merron (Lab)
I made reference to the Procurement Act 2023, and that is the guide by which we go.
Lord Scriven (LD)
It is for goods, but NHS services come under the 2022 health Act. There was discussion about whether it should have all fallen under one procurement law, but for NHS goods it is the 2023 Act, and for services it is the 2022 health Act that is applicable. If the Minister could write to me and place a copy in the Library, it would be helpful to see how the health Act also applies.
Baroness Merron (Lab)
So many health Acts. I would, of course, be very happy to do that.
I turn to Amendments 144, 147 and 160, tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones. I recognise the importance of ensuring that NHS IT and data procurements are fair and competitive, and protect the interests of patients and taxpayers. However, there is already extensive procurement law governing the department and NHS organisations. The Government agree with the objective of avoiding supplier lock-in. However, ownership of all connector IP is neither necessary nor the most effective means of achieving that. Appropriate licensing rights, interoperability requirements, open standards and exit provisions can protect portability and future competition without prescribing a single ownership model. Similarly, a blanket prohibition on suppliers that have previously provided free services could have unforeseen consequences, including for voluntary sector providers. Existing procurement rules provide safeguards against unfair incumbent advantage.
Lord Clement-Jones (LD)
The Minister mentioned existing procurement rules, and she gave a partial nod to my Amendments 144, 147 and 160, but said it was not always desirable for all those elements to be observed. Perhaps she could write and say which bits of those amendments—which are quite technical, I admit, dealing with interoperability, data connectors and the prevention of supplier lock-in—she means. It would be helpful if she could write and explain how the procurement rules that she prays in aid achieve some of those objectives.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
The Minister referred to national security grounds being considered in the letting of these contracts. When we talk about national security, traditionally we have thought about hostile states proving a threat, but now we are in the context of the broligarchy—tech oligarchs who wield enormous power and influence, frequently opaquely held, with links to far-right politics and Governments who are funding far-right forces in the UK and around Europe. Is the Minister confident that that kind of national security threat is adequately considered when we look at contracts?
Baroness Merron (Lab)
That is not a matter I feel able to reply to in detail right now, although I will gladly write. However, to the best of my knowledge, the interpretation of what represents a threat to national security is set out and is understood.
Lord Tarassenko (CB)
I thank all noble Lords who have spoken. I think we have mostly sung from the same hymn sheet, with perhaps the odd discordant note—maybe even a few bars, maybe even a whole movement, some people might argue. I am grateful to the Minister for her comprehensive reply.
I found it heartening last week to hear the Secretary of State speak positively about sovereign data and sovereign AI—those were her words. We now have an opportunity to go from concept to implementation within the next two years—namely, the single patient record contracts; that is, not the FDP contracts but the new contracts for the single patient record.
I believe, and I believe that many other noble Lords agree with me, that we have a highly capable—world-leading, I would say—UK medical technology and software sector, with companies that are often university spin-outs now ready to scale up. None of my amendments is in contradiction with the Procurement Act. I believe these companies can win these SPR contracts on merit. We are talking about supporting UK excellence, but we need to remember that the US spends billions to support technology in a radically different, profit-driven healthcare system, which often produces software that has a very poor fit to the NHS. I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, will be able to tell us that the original EPRs, the electronic patient records, from companies such as Epic and Cerner were a poor fit because they were designed for billing purposes, not for optimising patient outcomes. We made that mistake with the EPRs; let us not make the same mistake with the SPR.
In general, because the UK businesses are much smaller than the Oracles, the Epics, the Palantirs and the IBMs, we need a level playing field. I suggest that we need a signal from the Government to those companies that the Government are keen for them, as was mentioned by the Minister, to use procurement strategically to back UK business. I think that signal is the NHS digital sovereignty strategy, and I believe we will come back to it on Report. I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Lord Rennard
“Duty as to a smoke-free EnglandIn the National Health Service Act 2006, after section 1CC (inserted by section 6 of this Act) insert— “1CD Duty as to a smoke-free England(1) In exercising functions in relation to the health service, the Secretary of State must act with a view to England becoming smoke-free as defined in section 7(1) of the Health Act 2006 (offence of smoking in smoke-free place).(2) The Secretary of State must, within 12 months of the day on which the Health Act 2026 is passed, publish a roadmap setting out how the health service will contribute to England becoming smoke-free, including interim targets and the stop smoking services to be commissioned by integrated care boards.(3) The Secretary of State must lay before Parliament an annual report on progress against the roadmap.””Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would add a duty as to a smoke-free England to the Secretary of State’s health service duties, and require a roadmap and annual progress reports.
Lord Rennard (LD)
My Lords, I will speak first to my Amendment 279QA, which would require the Secretary of State to review the funding available for NHS stop-smoking services in England, including options for contributions from the tobacco industry. It is a moderate and, I hope, acceptable amendment in that it asks the Government to think about whether further funding to tackle the harms caused by tobacco should come from the hard-pressed taxpayer or from those companies that are responsible for the huge costs associated with smoking tobacco.
We need more onus on the tobacco industry to pay up from its huge profits to help reduce the huge damage done when it makes its victims addicted to nicotine. It would not in itself increase the financial burden on smokers, as funds would come only from profits, not consumers. I hope that the Minister will accept that my approach in this amendment is not about further taxes on unfortunate consumers. It is about the “polluter pays” principle being applied to tobacco companies.
Action on Smoking and Health estimates that smoking costs £44.8 billion in England alone every year. There is a huge financial burden on our NHS, our social care system and wider society through large-scale losses in productivity that are caused by tobacco smoking. Tobacco addiction places a huge burden on mental health, and it causes great damage through increased levels of ill-health generally, disability, and all the consequences that come from bereavement. My argument is simply that it is right that tobacco manufacturers, whose lethal and addictive products kill two-thirds of long-term users, should pick up more of the tab.
The APPG on Smoking and Health is arguing this at a time when the Government need to raise more funds and when they do not want to increase the burden on ordinary taxpayers. It is no wonder that, in opposition, Labour was emphatically in favour of this principle. On Report of the Health and Care Bill, the noble Baroness, Lady Merron, said that the principle
“strikes me as wholly pragmatic”.—[Official Report, 16/3/22; col. 297.]
Earlier in Committee, she said that such a measure had
“broad cross-party … and public support”.—[Official Report, 4/2/22; col. 1266.]
The noble Baroness, with her eloquence, helped to persuade the House to carry the amendment in support of considering a tobacco levy, by 213 votes to 154. In the Division, 86 out of 87 Labour Peers voted in favour of the principle of a tobacco levy. They included the noble Baroness, Lady Merron; the present Leader of the House, the noble Baroness, Lady Smith; the Deputy Leader of the House, the noble Lord, Lord Collins; and the Government Chief Whip, the noble Lord, Lord Kennedy. They cannot all have been wrong on this occasion.
The Treasury is reluctant to have such a hypothecated tax, however popular it might be, but the Treasury should consider how Prime Minister Andy Burnham has expressed his desire to extract revenue from businesses that do not make a positive contribution to communities. I simply ask: could there be any businesses in this country that are more negative in their impact on communities than the tobacco industry?
The Prime Minister and the Chancellor are desperately seeking ways of raising cash. Depending on the levy agreed, a levy could be applied to the profits of tobacco companies, raising perhaps £5 billion over five years. A very poor argument comes back from the Treasury to try to suggest that it might not raise very much because the actual level of the money raised would depend on the level of the levy, which it does not know and has not set. But there is great scope for taking taxes from tobacco companies’ enormous profits, and the revenue could be quite considerable.
I make a request to the Minister. Can she press His Majesty’s Treasury to meet the APPG on Smoking and Health, which strongly advocates the tobacco levy, to discuss this issue? The levy has been shown to be a revenue raiser, supported by 76% of adults in England. To fulfil the aims of the Government and all of us seeking to reduce further the prevalence of tobacco by helping smokers to quit, we need to do more and to find the money to pay for the action required.
In some respects we are going in the wrong direction, and we have to address that. We want to help the Government with their manifesto commitment to deliver opt-out smoking cessation support within routine care. Amendment 53A in my name would provide for a specific duty concerning a smoke-free England to be included in the Secretary of State’s health service duties and would require a road map for making further progress with annual reports to Parliament.
The world-leading Tobacco and Vapes Act will introduce a smoke-free generation from next year and marks the beginning of the end of the tobacco epidemic in this country. However, it is not job done. There are still 4.9 million smokers across the UK. We need a new target for ending smoking in this country. The previous Government had a target of Smokefree 2030, with less than 5% prevalence of smoking tobacco by that year; sadly, that target is now unlikely to be met.
I applaud the ambition of the Government with the “stopping the start” programme to try to prevent the tobacco habit being taken up in the first place, but we need a similar ambition for current smokers. Less than 5% prevalence would still leave millions of people smoking, and the Government should set a bold new target for when smoking rates will be less than 1%. We need a plan for how that will be achieved, a road map. This would set out which populations have the highest rates of smoking, where we are going to target our efforts and how we will do that. We are making progress. We know it can be achieved when we have clear, funded policies such as financial incentives, a bold target and system-wide change to support quit journeys. I beg to move.
Baroness Bennett of Manor Castle (GP)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Rennard, and to agree with every word he said. I would have signed the amendment had I caught up with it.
I will speak to my Amendments 267 and 274 in this group. These line up very well with Amendment 224 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, about a duty to promote public health. I do not think they are contradictory; they could both be included and would work together quite well. My Amendment 267 would add a new clause to establish a public health committee and health creation unit to promote public health and cross-government policy-making. At Second Reading there was a lot of discussion that this Bill is about institutional arrangements and has very little in it about actually delivering health; a number of amendments in this group, including mine, seek to address that.
This amendment builds on a proposal put forward by MPs at the Commons Committee stage. I am bringing it forward again because I do not think we can keep treating public health as the responsibility of one government department. We are in a terrible condition. Life expectancy gains have stalled and healthy life expectancy is falling. The latest ONS figures show that healthy life expectancy has dropped to its lowest level since records began in 2011 to 2013. Men in the UK can now expect just 60.7 years in good health and women 60.9 years. Those statistics represent millions of people spending more of their lives in poor health and reflect deep inequalities in our society.
Lord Young of Cookham (Con)
My Lords, I will speak to Amendment 224 on a duty to promote public health. When the Government came into office, they said they had three priorities:
“hospital to community … analogue to digital … sickness to prevention”.
I want to focus on the last. If the Government are going to achieve that ambition, it may require some rewiring of how the NHS works and how funding is distributed. Over the past few years, we have seen acute services taking a growing share of the budget. One understands all the short-term pressures on Ministers, who tend to ignore the long-term benefits.
Tucked away in the Budget Statement was a welcome and important statement. The Chancellor announced ring-fenced prevention spending that will bring down costs in the future. Hurrah for that; it is absolutely the right step to take. I wonder whether the Minister can answer a few questions related to that. First, how will preventive spending be defined? If it is too broad, it becomes meaningless; if it is too narrow, you end up with a number of very small pots. Will it include items that the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, has just mentioned, such as the warm homes fund? Will it include adult social care? Do the Government plan to use existing definitions of preventive spending, or are they planning to invent a new definition of their own?
Secondly, if there is going to be a ring-fenced preventive spending pot in central government, will that then be distributed down the chain to ICBs, local authorities and GPs? Will it continue to be ring-fenced as it goes down? Thirdly, relevant to that, when will this be introduced? Will it be in the next spending round, or is it going to take longer than that?
Finally, I reinforce what the noble Lord, Lord Rennard, said on Amendment 53A. In earlier debates, I have very much supported this and may have moved some of the amendments myself. Given the pressure on government expenditure, not to explore further the potential of hundreds of millions of pounds, if not billions, from a levy, which does not, as the noble Lord explained, feed through into the consumer prices index—it is not reflected in the price of cigarettes, but comes from the profits made by tobacco companies—I hope the Government do not have a totally closed mind on Amendment 53A.
Baroness Cass (CB)
My Lords, I am sorry that the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, is not able to be in her place this evening. I had the privilege of serving on the Childhood Vaccinations Committee, which she very ably chaired. I think it will produce a report which Members of the House will find informative and helpful, and I hope the Government will feel similarly. During the course of that report, we spent a long time talking about the relative impact of problems in access and in vaccine hesitancy. Within vaccine hesitancy, multiple different factors affect how parents feel about vaccinating their child. Among those is medical disinformation. We need to understand more about that and what vaccination and the risks mean to different communities and cultures. Much of that work happens on the ground, on the front line, with community leaders, health visitors and GPs working locally. However, that is not a reason for us not to take a national strategic approach.
The second reason I signed this amendment is that it uses the term “medical disinformation strategy” and talks about anti-vaccination and medical disinformation. The Government need to think about how we tackle medical disinformation much more broadly than just within the vaccine arena. I have talked often enough in this House about my review, but I have not on any occasion put on record what it felt like to do that review and, more particularly, what it felt like and has continued to feel like in the two years since.
The disinformation about my review started six hours before the report was released. It was a funded disinformation campaign, and it continues to date. One of the extraordinary things that were said was that I did not speak to any trans people during the review. We spoke to the support and advocacy groups every four weeks and I spoke to the gender clinicians working at the Tavistock every two weeks. It was said that we threw out 98% of the papers on the subject, which was clearly nonsense. It was said that we did not publish the name of the author of the review—and what did “CASS” stand for, by the way? That was probably one of the most extraordinary ones. Then there are those that I take less seriously, which are more recent, on why I have supported the puberty blocker trial. These range from my being the victim of a Russian kompromat, having a trans child of my own, and—this is the best one—that somebody has kidnapped my cat and is holding it to ransom. I am not particularly concerned about the personal attacks, of which there are many, but I am concerned about the disinformation that misleads children, young people, families and clinicians who are looking after them.
During those last two years after the review, I worked first for NHS England. I declare that I am currently an independent adviser for the DHSC. Colleagues have been supportive, but the burden of what to do about the direct disinformation at the end of the day rested with me. DSIT, as it was, seemed to be the locus of how we dealt with disinformation at that time, but it did not own the strategy, and neither did NHS England or the DHSC—although the DHSC has been very supportive in trying to get a communication strategy in more recent times.
My point in going through all this is not as a “poor me” about my experiences, but because it should never come as a surprise to us that there is disinformation, which is going to be an increasing problem going forward. It is no more surprising than bed pressures and flu in winter. Therefore, I suggest to the Minister, who has been exceptionally supportive to me over these matters, that, in thinking about the structures of the NHS, we need to consider strategically how we will be prepared for disinformation strategies, not just in vaccine services or gender services but in many areas as they arise.
Lord Scriven (LD)
I will quickly talk about my noble friend’s Amendment 224, on the public health duty of Ministers of the Crown. I think most noble Lords would agree that, if we are going to deal with prevention and the determinants of health, it goes far beyond the department to deal with the issues there.
It is always interesting and actually vital to read final impact assessments, because you will find little gems in them. In the final impact assessment on abolishing NHS England, it says:
“The Secretary of State will retain existing public health”
duties. But the NHS England functions to be repealed are not given to the Secretary of State. It says:
“NHS England’s duty to consult with public health professionals to obtain advice on the discharge of its functions will be repealed and not transferred to the Secretary of State”.
I have a very simple question for the Minister. I declare an interest in that my husband is a former director of public health. Anybody in the medical world who comes into contact with a doctor from public health will say that they are a very strange creature; living with one, I can confirm that is the case—but professionally, they look at things very differently. They are not about one part of the body or one disease; they take a much more holistic approach to the determinants of health and population health. Why is the Secretary of State retaining public health functions but not taking NHS England’s function to sit down with, listen to and consult public health professionals when carrying out those directions? It seems a very strange system to take the functions but not have the duty to sit down with and listen to public health officials. If that duty is not transferred to the Secretary of State, what body in law does the Secretary of State have to sit down with and listen to that is composed primarily of public health professionals?
Baroness Pidgeon (LD)
My Lords, I shall speak to Amendments 223, 224 and 231 in the name of my noble friend Lady Walmsley, who cannot be in her place today.
Amendment 223 would require Secretary of State to lay before Parliament an annual report on the performance of routine, seasonal and targeted immunisation programmes, which sets out the action plan for the coming year to address areas of low vaccine uptake. The report must also cover all eligible cohorts within the national immunisation programme, use consistent measures across programmes and include data that enables inequalities in vaccine uptake to be tracked by geography and population group. It should be in addition to existing vaccination coverage reporting. This would enable vaccine accountability and make sure it remains visible following the removal of Section 7A, with clear reporting on how national oversight is being maintained and how delegated responsibilities to ICBs and providers are being delivered.
Lord Kamall (Con)
My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who spoke to their amendments in this group. I will mainly touch on three points. First, on vaccines, I remember that, when I was the Minister who had to answer questions on vaccines during Covid, we were trying to work out how to tackle so-called vaccine hesitancy. One of the things we thought we had cracked was that we worked with local communities and faith organisations, which are trusted far more than whichever Minister happens to be on TV or even the Chief Medical Officer, even though he was a very trusted person. The interesting thing was that we tried to work with local communities, but we found that some churches were saying, “Don’t take the vaccine”. That was a challenge we faced. We thought we had cracked it by working with local organisations.
We have to be careful about distinguishing between misinformation and disinformation. They often have the same outcome. Misinformation, though, is quite often unintentionally spread, whereas disinformation is deliberately spread. We have to be aware of that.
Secondly on vaccines, there was a denial that anyone could come to harm from taking the vaccine, but any pill or therapeutic has risks. I remember when I went to take my first mRNA vaccine. I sat down with the nurses in my local surgery and asked, “How risky do you think this is?” They said, “Don’t worry, it’s safer than the pill”. That is not particularly reassuring for the women out there but, statistically, they were absolutely right. If you tell people that, for example, one in 10,000 might get heart inflammation or whatever then that will scare an awful lot of people but you are actually being honest about the statistics and the risk. There is a real challenge in being completely honest about the risks and the numbers, because everyone will think they might be that one in 10,000 so they will not take it. I really have not worked out how to crack that.
We then seemed to pretend that no one was harmed by the vaccine. It is true that, statistically, very few people—a very small percentage—were harmed or killed by the vaccine, but that gave rise to conspiracy theories about hiding the fact that people could be harmed by the vaccine. In reality, all medicines have a very small risk factor. It is about how we tackle that, because if we are too open about it then people will think they are the one in a million or the one in 10,000. That is a real challenge we all face.
The second thing I want to talk about is public health. Last year, I taught an MBA module on health policy. As part of that, I spoke to a lot of public health academics. One of the things I was astounded to hear from them was that they think that an awful lot of top-down public health does not necessarily work. We spoke about the example of sugar taxes. We feel good about them because there is less sugar in our drinks but, quite often, if people are not actually helped to change their behaviour then all they end up doing is spending more on their fizzy drinks, or they swap from the branded fizzy drinks to Asda or another supermarket’s own brand. We might feel good about it, but we have not actually changed their behaviour.
Far more effective is working with local community organisations. I have often mentioned one that I am very aware of, BRITE Box, which produces 38 meals a year for families. It gives them the ingredients, and it has tested the instructions and the menus. It has done a lot of academic research and found that what is very attractive to children and families are pictures with three or four bullet points. What quite often happens is that these families learn to eat and cook healthier meals together, which they love doing, and now that they have the 38 recipes, they carry on using them. As part of that, they learn to budget as well. That is something that top-down public health cannot do.
Our challenge is how to encourage more of these local community organisations, which understand the people whose behaviour needs to change to eat healthily on more of a budget, rather than always thinking that we should have a tax on something and that will change behaviour. Quite often, all it does is lead to people paying more for unhealthy food, rather than actually changing their behaviour.
I try to be consensual at times—maybe it is my 14 years in the European Parliament—but, for my third point, I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett of Manor Castle: we are not paying enough attention to AMR. Let us be honest about this. I remember that in the first Session after the General Election, when we swapped sides and Benches, I was asked to speak for the Opposition on a Question on AMR. The Minister at the time, the noble Lord, Lord Collins, said quite clearly that the Government were going to take a cross-governmental approach to tackling AMR, but we do not seem to have made any progress. I wonder whether the Minister has more information than I have to say what the Government are actually doing on AMR, particularly on a cross-government approach but also on international co-ordination.
All the amendments in this group raise important points. I look forward to the Minister’s response.
Baroness in Waiting/Government Whip (Baroness Hyde of Bemerton) (Lab)
My Lords, I am grateful to noble Lords who have tabled amendments in this group and want to take the opportunity to thank all the directors of public health across the country who are doing excellent work, close to the ground, day in and day out, as mentioned by some noble Lords. I also add my thanks to the noble Baroness, Lady Cass, for sharing her personal experiences on disinformation and misinformation. It is much appreciated.
I turn to Amendment 224 tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley—with thanks to her colleagues for speaking to it—and to Amendment 267 tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett. We agree that improving health and reducing inequalities requires actions beyond the NHS, across housing, education, employment and environment. Indeed, this was raised in an earlier group, where we discussed the fact that good health cannot be the sole preserve of DHSC. Ministers and officials already work across government to ensure that health evidence informs decisions. That includes some things mentioned by the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett, including action on poor-quality housing through the fuel poverty strategy, the decent homes standard and Awaab’s law, on work and health through the Keep Britain Working review—as alluded to in our first group of amendments today—and on air pollution through the environmental improvement plan. On Amendments 267 and 224, we are not persuaded that prescribing internal government structures or introducing a broad duty on Ministers in primary legislation is necessary. The Secretary of State already has a statutory duty concerning public health protection and powers to improve the health of people in England. Ministers also routinely consider the health implications of their decisions and work collectively in the public interest. Furthermore, through the English Devolution and Community Empowerment Act, we have introduced a duty for combined authorities, combined county authorities and mayors to have regard to the need to improve health and reduce health inequalities in the exercise of their functions. This duty complements that pre-existing local authority health improvement duty and role.
On the topic of public health, the noble Lord, Lord Scriven, raised a specific question about the small print in the impact assessment. As a statutory arm’s-length body, NHS England’s powers and duties are necessarily set out in statute, and it has a different legal role and responsibilities from the Secretary of State and the Department of Health and Social Care. While it was appropriate for NHS England to be bound by a duty to seek advice to ensure that it effectively discharged its functions, it is not necessary to bind the Secretary of State in that way. However, I can assure the House that the Secretary of State will continue to seek advice as appropriate.
The noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, tabled Amendments 231 and 223. Although she is not in her place, I want to thank her for her work as chair of this House’s Childhood Vaccinations Committee. As other noble Lords have mentioned, inaccurate information can undermine confidence, but uptake also depends on access, deprivation and awareness. National communication, support for front-line professionals and monitoring of emerging narratives already address misinformation alongside these wider barriers. A statutory strategy focused solely on disinformation risks duplicating activity and reducing flexibility. The Government are acting to improve uptake more broadly, including by making it easier for families to get vaccinated, giving families more information about vaccination, investing in new digital services for vaccination and organising the NHS to promote improvements in uptake. To give an example, we have reformed incentives for general practice to incentivise improved uptake in areas with low uptake, rather than rewarding only those with high uptake. That can then support best practice among general practice and address the inequities in uptake.
On Amendment 223, UKHSA and NHS England already publish extensive, timely data on routine, seasonal and targeted immunisation programmes. Requiring consistent measures in primary legislation could impose artificial standardisation where programmes are not comparable. Instead, our priorities are to improve existing reporting and act on the evidence. This Government take seriously the fact that misinformation and disinformation does and can undermine confidence, but it is one factor among several. We would also include in that the role of social media, which the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon, mentioned. That is why we are working across a number of measures, around marketing campaigns, supporting health professionals to have those conversations with people who are vaccine-hesitant, as well as monitoring and responding to emerging narratives and trying to debunk, by “prebunking”, if I may, that kind of misinformation and disinformation.
I turn to Amendment 274 on antimicrobial resistance from the noble Baroness, Lady Bennett. As she said, this is being addressed through the United Kingdom’s 2024 to 2029 AMR national action plan. A stand-alone review of annual AMR-related deaths could duplicate the work already under way in that plan. UKHSA undertakes continuing surveillance and is developing a mortality metric to improve our understanding across different infections and settings. I hope that noble Lords will agree that continuing surveillance, modelling and reporting will provide more durable insight than a one-off statutory review.
Baroness Cass (CB)
Can I ask the Minister one more thing? The Government are being active on vaccines, as she said, but disinformation—the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon, made this point as well—goes further than just a vaccine strategy. It is really about the Government having a disinformation preparedness approach in the same way as they have preparedness for a pandemic, because there will be disinformation campaigns that we have not yet anticipated in other areas. Are there further thoughts on how that might be approached?
Baroness Hyde of Bemerton (Lab)
I thank the noble Baroness for that question. The Government are aware of the whack-a-mole nature of this and the constantly evolving picture. There are things that we cannot even imagine today that tomorrow will seem inevitable. I will write to her with a more comprehensive reply. We absolutely accept that this is not just about vaccines and that there is work to do.
Lord Rennard (LD)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have spoken in this debate and particularly appreciate that we are all on the same page on the principles of these issues. However, when it comes to the tobacco levy, the Government Front Bench were more on the same page as us when they were in opposition than they are this evening.
I reiterate my invitation to the Treasury to come and meet the APPG on Smoking and Health to discuss these issues. We know that increasing the price of cigarettes has reduced consumption, but we worry about the fact that many smokers are poor. Often, they are poor because they smoke—and are in ill health. We want to improve their health. If we simply tax them more and not the tobacco companies, the wrong people will be paying for the damage caused by the industry. Looking at models, we see that in the pharmaceutical industry it is perfectly possible to tax profits while preventing price increases hitting the consumer. That is the principle we must examine.
On that note, I beg leave to withdraw my amendment.
Lord Lansley
“(za) in subsection (1), after paragraph (j) insert—“(k) such other services and facilities as are required for persons with a primary health need arising from a progressive or deteriorating disease which is reasonably expected to continue for the remainder of the person's life, including where the person's condition is intermittent or fluctuating, and without regard to the rate of such progression or deterioration or whether a person is entering a terminal phase of their life.””Member’s explanatory statement
This amendment would ensure that a wider range of serious chronic diseases, such as severe dementia, would qualify for NHS Continuing Care and not have eligibility restricted on grounds that the condition is fluctuating or is not deemed to be in a terminal phase.
Lord Lansley (Con)
My Lords, this group is essentially about the processes of commissioning. Other groups will touch on these issues, but Amendment 54 raises the commissioning of NHS continuing care. It is grouped with amendments that relate to other aspects of specialised commissioning.
I thank the Minister for her letter earlier today saying that she will be able to tell us quite soon what the division of responsibilities for commissioning between the national and the ICB level will be. She expects it to be broadly similar to the practical distribution of commissioning responsibilities now. That is a comfort to some of us in understanding how this will work in future. She was also kind enough to tell us, in the spirit of “the more things change, the more they stay the same”, that, following the disbandment of the commissioning support units, we will have the office of pan-ICB commissioning—which sounds awfully like the recreation of commissioning support units.
I am in favour of having commissioning support units. I was originally in favour of having an opportunity for independent support to commissioning, not just NHS-delivered support for commissioning and competition between commissioners in who provided them with that expertise. I will not get that, obviously, but having the ability to provide support to the commissioners collectively is clearly the right thing to be doing.
I do want to just say that, from my point of view, there is an issue about specialised commissioning, which the Minister’s letter touched on: the question of standards. When we took the responsibilities for some specialised commissioning away from primary care trusts, we found that there was substantial variability in what was being commissioned, how it was being commissioned and the standards to which it was being commissioned. One of the most expensive aspects of the reforms that we had to undertake was that we brought them to the same standard, the highest standard, which over recent years has been guided by the publication of the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence’s guidance and standards.
I hope that when we come to debate specialised commissioning in more detail, we will also look at ensuring that we continue to meet those high standards, notwithstanding that there is a difficulty in reconciling that with the budgetary decisions on commissioning that must be made by individual ICBs if they are responsible for specialised commissioning. We will have to find out precisely how that divides itself.
I do not want to say any more about specialised commissioning. I want to focus on Amendment 54, which is intended to deliver a very specific question to Ministers that I hope we will follow through. A couple of weeks ago, we all agreed during Oral Questions that this Bill is a big opportunity to improve social care. The Minister herself said that. Well, it is. There will be two or three debates, of which this is the first, at which I hope to bring forward ways in which this Bill can be used to undertake essential aspects of the future shape of what a national care service looks like.
I do not have to go into all the aspects of what a national care service is, but one building block in making it happen is for the NHS to take a greater and more substantial responsibility for providing continuing care to people who have a primary health need. Noble Lords may say, “But does it not do that now?” The point is that, presently, two-thirds of access to NHS continuing care essentially comes through the fast-track route. That pathway tool is very much focused on those who are reaching what is described as a rapidly deteriorating condition leading to a terminal phase of life. Unfortunately, this means there are very many who have a condition that I think NHS continuing care was, and is, intended to provide for, where the NHS takes responsibility for a person who has a primary health need which arises from a progressive or deteriorating disease expected to continue throughout their life. That is the fundamental definition, but that is not what the NHS is presently doing.
The Prime Minister himself gives us the classic illustration: he says, and said again on 1 September this year, that the NHS should support people with dementia as well as it supports people with cancer. This is precisely what does not happen. NHS continuing care is often available to people with a terminal diagnosis of cancer who are rapidly deteriorating, but, for a variety of reasons, somebody with severe dementia does not get it. They do not get it because it cannot be established: there is no prognosis in the way there often is for cancer. They do not get it because they are often in a situation where, from the point of view of the assessment, there is less clinical intervention, even though a primary health need gives rise to the condition; it is often intermittent, fluctuating and not predictable; and there are often episodes when somebody who is undertaking assessment will say, “Well, at the moment, this is manageable without all the clinical interventions that would be required if this were a cancer diagnosis”.
So I think we have a serious issue. This is why my Amendment 54 says that we should construct the legislation in a form that requires the persons using this decision support tool for NHS continuing care to have regard to whether it is a primary health need that gives rise to a patient’s condition and whether it is a long-term condition they will have throughout the rest of their life, in which case the NHS should therefore take on the responsibility.
Given the hour, I do not want to dwell on any further details or examples, but I think the comparison is very straightforward. It is increasingly clear that the reason people do not get access is because of the failure to observe the principle that the NHS should take responsibility where a primary health need gives rise to that social care requirement; in practice, principally for budgetary reasons, that has been narrowly confined. If the Prime Minister, as I understand it, is looking towards the state taking a greater responsibility, a very good starting point for that to happen would be for the NHS to take responsibility for those people whose social care requirement arises from a primary healthcare need. That is the principle of purpose of Amendment 54, which I beg to move.
Baroness Grey-Thompson (CB)
My Lords, I have Amendments 57, 73 and 80 in this group and will also speak briefly to Amendment 58, which is about allergies. Natasha’s Foundation submitted thorough and useful information to the task and finish group that I ran for the Department for Transport on improving aviation for disabled people. There needs to be more consideration of this area. Obviously, there is much movement, but there are still many issues.
The principle behind my amendments is national protection for all specialised services regardless of whether they remain nationally commissioned or transfer to integrated care boards. Patients must not lose safeguards because the identity of the commissioner changes. Nationally consistent standards, oversight, quality assurance and accountability must be statutory safeguards, not optional administrative assurances. Local flexibility must not become local inequality.
Amendment 57 says that a national framework is needed. The current wording may be narrower than the intended protection for all specialised services, but I seek ministerial assurance on how the universal principle will be secured. Some highly specialised services require dedicated condition-specific national frameworks. Generic service specifications cannot always protect the expertise, pathways and critical mass that they need. Amendment 73 seeks annual reporting to Parliament, which must cover all specialised services irrespective of the commissioner, so that changes in access, quality, outcomes and variation remain visible. Amendment 80 seeks clear national assurance and Secretary of State accountability; these are needed, including where commissioning responsibility sits locally.
It is important to have a robust impact assessment before any transfer happens, looking at clinical risk, patient safety, equity, workforce, specialised networks, financial sustainability and the effect on smaller patient populations. I am specifically interested in those with spinal cord injuries. I do not have a traumatic injury; I have spina bifida. Spinal cord injury services illustrate the stakes. There can be complex lifelong needs, but there is a limited number of specialist centres and there are risks of fragmented pathways to rehabilitation and follow-up. Government-NHS England discussions about a wider framework are welcome, but policy commitments can change and Parliament should secure enduring duties. I thank the Minister for the letter we received this morning and look forward to more information on commissioning, but how will universal coverage, condition-specific protections, enforceable national oversight and transparent parliamentary reporting be guaranteed?
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Lab)
My Lords, I have Amendments 58 and 71 in this group and I have added my name to Amendment 59 from the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon. I endorse everything that the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, has said. At heart, the issue is that there is a lot of concern about ICBs’ ability to discharge the commissioning responsibilities they are being given. I refer my noble friend to a report on wheelchair commissioning issued this morning by the Public Service Ombudsman. She has used individual complaints to produce a thematic report on the effectiveness of ICBs in commissioning wheelchair service. She has found that ICBs are absolutely hopeless at doing this.
We will debate wheelchairs later in the Bill, but we then turn to allergies in my Amendment 58 and, again, one sees a depressing picture. It is a mammoth issue. More than 20 million people and approximately 40% of children have been diagnosed with an allergy. Any parent or grandparent knows the difficulty of getting access to the system. The National Allergy Strategy Group, to which I pay great tribute, has produced a framework which will ensure much better commissioning of the provision of services. It found that only 26 of England’s 44 ICB areas have a local adult allergy service. It makes you wonder why on earth we do not have an allergy service in each part of the country. Then you come to the specialist services, which are often represented by small NGOs that have no chance whatever of relating to ICBs. That is why they want a national commissioning process, because that is the only way that they can expect to be heard.
ICBs do not have the reputation of being open. They do not often respond to representations made to them. In fact, they have little contact with parliamentarians. This is at the heart of why there is concern about this process. The Government’s decision to reduce management costs also brings concerns about their capacity. In the end, we all want some assurance that ICBs will be beefed up and that the unit which the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, referred to is going to do the job for many of them, because what is the point of all these ICBs trying to reinvent the wheel? Why not produce some standardised commissioning and then help them commission and monitor it? That is where you get the benefit of what the Government are seeking to do, in delayering and reducing management costs and bureaucracy, but it has to be done in a way which does not leave all these services at the mercy of very varied ICBs.
Baroness Scott of Needham Market (LD)
My Lords, I have tabled Amendment 65 to Clause 15 on the topic of accessible patient involvement. It seeks to ensure that the arrangements for involving patients in commissioning decisions are accessible to those living with long-term, complex or fluctuating health conditions. I welcome the Government’s decision to retain and strengthen Healthwatch England and local Healthwatch organisations. It is an important recognition of the value of independent patient voice, and I am pleased that Ministers have listened to the concerns raised across both Houses and beyond. However, retaining that independent patient representation is only part of the picture. We must also ensure that the mechanisms through which patients are consulted and involved in the decisions which affect their care are genuinely accessible.
I take a close interest in ME. I have a family member with it and I am a member of the all-party group. For people living with severe or very severe ME, conventional forms of consultation can be extremely difficult and quite often impossible. Attending meetings, participating in lengthy phone calls or completing detailed questionnaires can worsen some symptoms considerably. I have spoken about ME, but there are many other conditions for which the same can be said. If patient involvement arrangements are not designed with these limitations in mind, there is a real risk that those people with the greatest need will have the least opportunity to influence the services which should be supporting them.
This concern is particularly relevant given the evidence of poor access to services now. Action for ME’s 2026 big survey gathered responses from more than 5,000 people living with ME and long Covid. They found that 83% of respondents reported barriers to accessing NHS ME services. I was also struck by the large number in the survey who were not able to access any kind of healthcare at all, including routine screening. This is totally unacceptable. We cannot expect services to meet the needs of these patients if they are effectively excluded from the decisions about how those services are designed and commissioned.
My amendment is very modest. It would require the Secretary of State to take reasonable steps to ensure that patient involvement arrangements are accessible and inclusive, with particular regard to disabled people and those with long-term, complex or fluctuating conditions. This could mean greater flexibility in how people contribute and how they are consulted. It needs to recognise the particular circumstances in which patients can participate. It will require a little imagination and quite a lot of empathy, but it ought to be possible. I would therefore welcome the Minister’s assurance that these patients will not be overlooked in the Government’s arrangements for patient involvement and ask whether she would consider putting something in the guidance to make sure that it happens.
Lord Scriven (LD)
It is a pleasure to follow my noble friend. I want to come back to the points that the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, made. I believe we are coming to a point in this Bill for us to make reasonable amendments and suggestions. Either we can continue to go down the road without the detail and let the service reorganise itself, or we can start to get some serious detail, particularly regarding specialised commissioning and the capacity of ICBs.
Just to understand, there are about 154 specialised services that are commissioned. Already, around 70 of those are commissioned via ICBs under delegated direction from NHS England, and the rest are commissioned centrally by NHS England. What the Government are asking is for the cuts to be made to staff, for the staff to go, and then for the detailed skills and knowledge that are required for the specialised commissioning to come after that process. The National Audit Office has put out a report which questions, even on existing duties, whether ICBs have the skills, knowledge and breadth to carry out what the Government want.
With these extra services, it could be that ICBs, the delegated strategic commissioners, cannot commission what Government wish them to commission. The noble Lord, Lord Hunt, and I both got quite cross with the then Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Kamall, during the passage of the 2022 Act, that things were happening in the system before Parliament had made the decision. That is what is beginning to happen again; things are happening. The offices for pan-ICB commissioning are not new; they were asked to be determined in April 2026. They were in the impact assessment for the abolition of NHS England, so they are already known about. The key issue is: what services are they going to have to give a joint response for? Will we have the list of specialised commissioning services carried out by ICBs and the Secretary of State by Report? Is that a commitment the Minister can give? If not, we cannot make a reasonable decision on Report about specialised commissioning with the depth and breadth of knowledge that is required. Can the Minister give us that commitment?
As the offices for pan-ICB commissioning—OPICs—were selected in April, can the Minister commit to giving us their duties and the budgets they will have, or will be able to direct, in writing before Report? What powers of direction will the Secretary of State have for consistency of ICB specialised commissioning, and can those be with us by Report? These are important questions that need to be answered because, if not, we will be getting to Report, being asked to support specialised commissioning with two bodies—the Secretary of State and ICBs—and, particularly for ICBs, we will not know whether they have the capacity to do it. I do not think that this House will be able to make a decision about whether it is reasonable, safe or justified for us to continue suggesting that this is a route for ICBs to commission.
Baroness Cass (CB)
Briefly, I support the comments of my noble friend Lady Grey-Thompson and the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, and thank the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon, for Amendment 59, which I fully support. It is all right for me to support all of these people, because according to the best disinformation sources, I am in the pay of the Tories, but not the other parties. I did hesitate over whether I should allow a friend on the Opposition Benches to buy me a cup of tea the other day.
On a serious note, I worry, as others do, about ICB capabilities, and my noble friend Lady Finlay and I have spent years struggling with a postcode lottery on the commissioning of specialist palliative care services for children. They are commissioned at the wrong level, and therefore vary hugely from ICB to ICB, and should be commissioned at a higher level. The notion of greater devolution fills me with anxiety, so I fully support that amendment.
Lord Sharkey (LD)
My Lords, I will speak mainly to Amendment 74, which is in my name and those of my colleagues, the noble Baronesses, Lady Chisholm and Lady Sater, and I am grateful for their support. I declare an interest as chair of the Specialised Healthcare Alliance—SHCA—a coalition of nearly 140 patient organisations and corporate supporters campaigning on behalf of people with rare and complex conditions. There are 3.5 million people in the UK living with a rare condition, and I have heard at first hand how vital specialised services are in ensuring that they receive the best possible treatment, care and support. The Health Bill before us has potentially significant implications for how these services will be commissioned in future.
Amendment 74’s purpose is simple: to ensure that specialised commissioning, whether undertaken by the Secretary of State or ICBs, continues to be informed by a strong national clinical leadership and specialist clinical advice. One of the great strengths of the current specialised commissioning system is the clinical infrastructure that supports it. There are national clinical directors; national specialty advisers, who are practising clinicians working part-time at NHS England to provide clinical leadership, advice, input and support; and clinical reference groups, which bring together healthcare professionals, patient representatives and other experts to help to design, monitor and improve specialised services. This includes supporting the development of national standards.
As we move towards the abolition of NHS England, SHCA members are asking what this will mean for the future of clinical leadership in specialised commissioning. At present there is considerable uncertainty. I have heard from individuals sitting on clinical reference groups, for example, who still do not know whether their role will exist in a few months’ time. The purpose of Amendment 74 is not to prescribe a particular organisational model. Rather, it is to establish an important principle that the planning, design, delivery and monitoring of specialised services should continue to be informed by clinicians with the relevant expertise.
As commissioning arrangements become more dispersed, national clinical leadership arguably becomes more important, not less. The Government have stated that national standards for specialised services will remain a priority, but it is unclear how those standards will be developed, maintained and monitored without the clinical infrastructure that underpins it today. I anticipate that the Minister will reaffirm the Government’s commitment to clinical leadership, and I would welcome that, but what would provide real assurance to patients and clinicians is greater clarity about how that commitment will be delivered in practice. In that spirit, can the Minister clarify what discussions have taken place regarding the future of national clinical directors, national specialty advisers and clinical reference groups? In general, how do the Government intend to ensure that specialised commissioning continues to be shaped by the strongest possible clinical leadership and specialist advice—and, of course, the patient voice?
I turn briefly to Amendments 57, 73 and 80 from the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, to which she has spoken so eloquently. Together, they call for greater security of the delegation of specialised services and clear reporting mechanisms, something that SHCA members have repeatedly called for. The right checks and balances must be in place but currently they are not. For example, under NHS England, delegation decisions have been informed by formal assessments of service suitability and service readiness alongside board approval. No equivalent to this is set out in the Bill. The publication of an impact assessment before any specialised service is delegated to ICBs is a proportionate and reasonable safeguard. Before such a significant commissioning change is made, it is only logical to properly consider factors including patient safety, clinical outcomes and equity of access.
I also support the amendment from the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, calling for an annual report on the commissioning and performance of specialised services. The Health Bill allows responsibility and, for the first time, legal accountability for specialised services to move away from the national level and towards ICBs. This makes transparency more important than ever, but a number of important questions remain unanswered.
For example, the Government have stated that there will be,
“enhanced oversight of ICB specialised commissioning to monitor compliance with national standards”,
but how will this oversight operate in practice? Some services have national standards that are more than a decade old or, occasionally, no national standards at all. What is the process for updating these? How will transparency be improved, given the current lack of publicly available data on whether national standards are being met? I recognise that we do not want to overload commissioners and providers with numerous reporting requirements. However, given that there are more than 150 specialised services, accounting for approximately 14% of the NHS budget, a single annual report does not seem an unreasonable expectation.
My questions for the Minister are straightforward. If the Secretary of State or individual ICBs fail to meet national standards, how will we know and what action will follow? In that context, does the Minister agree that existing accountability mechanisms, such as the NHS oversight framework, are nowhere near granular enough for specialised services and that an annual report would fill an important gap in accountability? I look forward to the Minister’s reply.
Baroness Chisholm of Owlpen (Non-Afl)
My Lords, feeling invisible, constant uncertainty, high rates of distress, caregiver burnout: these are only four of many problems facing those suffering from rare disease. That is why my name is on the amendments from the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, and the noble Lord, Lord Sharkey. We have heard from the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, about the importance of impact assessments. I am vice-chair of the Specialised Healthcare Alliance, along with my fellow vice-chair, the noble Baroness, Lady Sater, and the noble Lord, Lord Sharkey, is chair. It plays an important role in specialised services. I support the requirement for an impact assessment before any specialised service is delegated to ICBs. All that the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, said makes a brilliant case for this.
I am really concerned that we still lack an overarching assessment of what the Bill could mean for specialised services as a whole. We need to have assurances on how the Government will assess and monitor the cumulative impact of changes on specialised services. I hope the Minister can reassure us on this point.
I strongly support what the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, said about the importance of annual reporting. In fact, that is already standard practice in other major areas of the health service—for example, the newly established National Cancer Board. Surely the Minister must see that how important the tool of annual reporting is for driving accountability and improvement in cancer services. In which case, surely the same principle should apply to specialist services.
My name is also on Amendment 74 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Sharkey, on the importance of clinical leadership. Given the number of people affected and the complex conditions involved, there is a strong case for a senior clinical leadership to provide strategic oversight across care, research and policy. The Future for Rare campaign, which the SHCA supports, is calling for a national clinical leader for rare conditions in each UK nation. Given the Government’s commitments to appoint a dementia tsar and a national clinical head for brain cancer, does the Minister agree that a similar role for rare conditions merits consideration? I look forward to the Minister agreeing to these very small but very important amendments.
Baroness Sater (Con)
My Lords, I will speak briefly in support of Amendment 74, to which I added my name, and I fully support all that has been said by my friend, the noble Lord, Lord Sharkey, and my noble friend Lady Chisholm. I declare an interest as a vice-chair of the Specialised Healthcare Alliance. I also put on record my support for Amendments 57 and 73 tabled by my friend, the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson. She made some very compelling points, particularly on the importance of proper scrutiny, transparency and accountability as we move towards these new commissioning arrangements. It is vital that we understand the impact of these changes and have the means to monitor whether they are delivering the right outcomes for our patients.
On Amendment 74, there is just one further point I would like to raise: the importance of patient and public involvement. While much of this debate has focused on clinical expertise, it is important that we recognise that clinical reference groups are also a key mechanism for patient and public involvement. If they are removed without a credible alternative, that patient voice risks being diminished. These voices are incredibly important. Through my work with the Specialised Healthcare Alliance, I hear at first hand from our coalition of nearly 400 patient organisations, campaigning on behalf of people with rare and complex conditions, just how important this involvement is.
There is no substitute for hearing directly from those with lived experience. Their perspectives are invaluable, and it is important that they continue to be heard as these new arrangements take shape. Will the Minister therefore set out how the Government intend to maintain and, ideally, strengthen patient and public involvement in specialised commissioning? In particular, I would welcome clarity on what role the new offices for the pan-ICB commissioning will play in supporting that engagement and ensuring that the voices of patients and their organisations continue to be heard.
I hope the Minister can provide some reassurance on this because, ultimately, the voices of patients and those who represent them must remain at the heart of specialised commissioning. I look forward to hearing the Minister’s response.
Lord Harlech (Con)
My Lords, I have been listening with great interest, and I am still none the wiser as to why my amendment has been crowbarred into this group. But I suppose it is quite apt to be discussing the medical situation of Reserve Forces personnel on Armistice Day. I declare my interest as a serving officer in the Army Reserve.
Amendment 279QE would require a health body, when dealing with an individual, to make arrangements to establish and record whether that person is a serving member of the Reserve Forces and then to have due regard to that individual’s need to meet the medical and dental fitness standards required for call-out. This amendment was debated at the Committee and Report stages of the Armed Forces Bill and I bring it here because, with respect, the reasons given for not accepting it do not survive examination. I should add that those answers came from the Ministry of Defence rather than from this department. I saw the noble Baroness, Lady Antrobus, in her place earlier and thought that perhaps the MoD had put her up to knock this one back again.
The first reason given was that the amendment risks undermining the principle that National Health Service treatment follows clinical need rather than employment status. My proposed new section says the opposite in subsections (2) and (7). More concretely, this Bill does not itself proceed on that principle without qualification. Clause 12 substitutes a new Section 3B into the National Health Service Act 2006, allowing regulations to require the Secretary of State to arrange
“services or facilities for members of the armed forces or their families”,
and subsection (4) of that new section defines them as including the Reserve Forces. The Bill before this Committee, therefore, already contemplates commissioning by reference to service status and names reservists when it does so.
Nor is the principle novel in practice. On Report on the Armed Forces Bill, the noble Lord, Lord Stevens of Birmingham, reminded the House that from 1953 until at least 1997,
“certain classes of veterans from the First and Second World Wars received priority treatment for certain conditions”,
and that today
“merchant seafarers receive fast-track access for routine care under the Dreadnought Medical Service on offer at St Thomas’ Hospital so they can get back to sea”.—[Official Report, 20/10/26; col. 608.]
Baroness Barker (LD)
My Lords, I have shared with the House the experience of caring for somebody with a very rare neurological condition. It was because of that that, a few days ago, I went to the meeting that the Minister was good enough to organise with people from NHS England, where we discussed this very topic with them. I think they were meant to assure noble Lords that the transition from NHS England to ICBs would be a step forward, but they did not—they really did not. I echo the point made by my noble friend Lord Scriven that we are still awaiting the detail on those 150 conditions that are currently commissioned by NHS England, 70 of which will supposedly be transferred down to ICBs, and how that will work. I know people who work in ICBs and have a great concern that, because they have been left in limbo about their employment status for so long, there is a haemorrhaging of staff out of those bodies. I do not know whether there will be the clinical experience and corporate knowledge within those bodies to take on the enhanced commissioning role.
I just want to pick up on what the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, said about continuing healthcare. If noble Lords think that SEND is a scandal, they have not paid any attention to what is happening in continuing healthcare. People who have complex conditions, from which they are never going to get better, get shoved around, batted back and forth between social services and particularly the health service, like hot potatoes. The summer before last, an edict went out that lots of people had to be assessed for continuing healthcare. They never got it. There was never a hope that they were going to get it. They just had to go through a cynical process that somebody thought up centrally and shoved down the line. I went through it—we went through it—and I know other people who went through it.
I wish the Minister could have been there to listen to those people as they said, “I can cope, but the NHS—that’s going to break me”. The continuing healthcare system is an utter scandal. I am really glad that the noble Lord, Lord Lansley, has begun to shine some light on it.
Baroness Pidgeon (LD)
My Lords, this has been a really interesting and important debate, trying to tease out many of the issues and concerns with specialist commissioning in the new structures set out in the Bill, and the worries about ICBs—their capability and capacity—and the access to services across the country.
I have two amendments in this group, which I will try to talk to briefly. Amendment 59, to which the noble Baroness, Lady Cass, and the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, have added their names, seeks to require the Secretary of State to have regard to the specific needs of children and young people when considering devolving responsibility for specialist commissioning services. This has wide support across the sector.
Children and young people make up around 20% of the overall population. Therefore, commissioning arrangements designed at a scale for adults just do not work for the small scale required to be effective for children. Many children are dependent on specialist commissioning, and it is essential for the provision of care for rare diseases and complex conditions, such as childhood cancers. Children are disproportionately affected by rare diseases: 75% manifest in children. The benefits of specialist commissioning being centralised and co-ordinated at a national level are clear, given the small number of patients.
The Health Bill’s direction to split commissioning is of huge concern. There is huge uncertainty out there. We have been in this position before because specialist commissioning, as was mentioned earlier, had been devolved to primary care trusts. They experienced many of the concerns that have been raised today. The previous report by the noble Lord, Lord Carter, recommended that specialist commissioning should be overseen at a national level. We need to learn the lessons from this and not repeat the same mistakes. I hope that before any delegated arrangements are made for children and young people’s specialised services, full consideration is given to the impact on those services.
The other amendment I have in this group is Amendment 279N. I still cannot believe that access to IVF treatment is not equal across the country. Your chance of being able to have a baby is decided by NHS bureaucracy and where you live, rather than clinical guidance and your health. You can have people living in roads next to each other and they can have one round of IVF or three rounds of IVF, despite NICE having recommended three rounds of IVF. We have seen the provision continuing to be reduced. Kent and Medway cut its services earlier this year from two to one and also lowered the age when someone can have treatment from under 40 to under 38. Sussex slashed its services last year from three cycles to one, and now all 10 boroughs in Greater Manchester are reduced to one. Only two of the 38 ICBs offer the NICE-recommended number of three cycles of IVF. Fertility challenges affect one in six people. The physical and psychological impact is huge.
I know the Minister is hearing all our concerns that we keep raising throughout the Bill. I do not feel we are getting much back from the Minister. But surely this is one area where there might be some movement. I urge the Government to look carefully at this and the other amendments in this group. I look forward to the Minister’s response.
Earl Howe (Con)
My Lords, I start by welcoming Amendment 54, as tabled by my noble friend Lord Lansley. It raises an important concern about eligibility for NHS continuing care. Someone suffering from a serious chronic condition, including severe dementia, should not find themselves disadvantaged in comparison with someone with terminal cancer simply because their condition fluctuates or because they are not considered to be approaching the end of life. Eligibility should be determined by the intensity and complexity of a person’s needs rather than by arbitrary distinctions. Having said that, and while the concept of continuing care is one that we can all embrace, its quality and delivery, as the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, so succinctly reminded us, often fall far short of the ideal. Can the Minister therefore say whether the Government will consider making the existing eligibility framework more responsive to the patients that my noble friend described?
I also welcome my noble friend Lord Harlech’s Amendment 279QE. Recognising the particular medical and dental fitness requirements of reservists is a sensible and clearly proportionate measure. The amendment does not displace the key principle, as he explained, that clinical need must remain paramount in this context. Can the Minister explain how the Government currently expect health bodies to recognise the particular circumstances of reservists and whether further guidance might be necessary?
This debate has been characterised by a consistent measure of concern around commissioning. We have seen this through Amendments 57, 59 and 73, as tabled by the noble Baronesses, Lady Grey-Thompson and Lady Pidgeon, who are seeking greater transparency through impact assessments and reporting requirements, particularly where specialised services are transferred to ICBs.
The noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Kings Heath, in Amendment 58, similarly highlights allergy provision. All this argues for Amendment 80, as tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, which seeks greater scrutiny of the performance of ICBs.
As a significant number of the amendments in this group highlight, including those from the noble Baroness, Lady Scott of Needham Market, and the noble Lord, Lord Sharkey, there is concern that the Secretary of State, with so many priorities, will be unable to provide acceptable standards for certain groups. Accountability and consistency of standards cannot just be taken as a given or as things that will come out magically in the wash. It would be helpful if the Minister could explain to the Committee how the Government intend to reconcile these objectives.
In particular, where specialised commissioning is transferred to ICBs, who will be responsible for ensuring that the necessary commissioning capacity and expertise will be in place? Amendment 74, from the noble Lord, Lord Sharkey, and my noble friends Lady Sater and Lady Chisholm, asks a corresponding and equally important question around clinical leadership. As the noble Lord, Lord Scriven, expressed so well, the amendments in this group demonstrate the complexity of the decisions involved in commissioning healthcare, particularly for specialised services. I do think that further and better particulars are required from the Government before any of us can feel comfortable with the direction in which we are heading.
Baroness Merron (Lab)
My Lords, I am most grateful for this debate. I will endeavour to pick up most of the main points, but if I do not manage to do that, given the hour, I will of course be pleased to review the points raised and pick them up—in particular, looking at how I could be more helpful in providing some of the broader information that is being sought.
Perhaps I could start by emphasising that the whole point about the Bill is that Ministers are, of course, responsible to Parliament for how they discharge all their duties, including how they promote the comprehensive health service that we all seek and how we reduce health inequalities in access and outcomes.
The regulations prescribing the services retained for national commissioning will be subject to parliamentary approval. I assure your Lordships’ Committee that, in putting forward the regulations, Ministers have to have regard to patient numbers, provision costs and the number of providers, because they all relate to safety, effectiveness and value for money of commissioning at various different tiers.
Lord Lansley (Con)
My Lords, there have been so many good speeches that I have listened to, on so many important issues. I know we will return to them on Report, so, specifically with that in mind, I beg leave to withdraw Amendment 54.